PERSPECTIVE

In defence of INEC

Mohammed Haruna

The ten-day voter registration exercise which started on September 12 has, by almost all accounts, been a fiasco. Nigerians, apparently keen to exercise their right to choose those who govern them, turned out in their huge numbers to register. A huge, but so far indeterminate, number of them was not registered at the end of the exercise essentially because INEC’s field staff claimed they were given the registration forms in dribs and drabs. Consequently, for much of the time during the 10-day registration exercise, materials were in short supply.

INEC has been blaming the resulting fiasco on unscrupulous politicians who have bought the registration forms with, of course, a little connivance of many of its own staff. It is all too easy for INEC to blame anyone but itself for the voter registration fiasco, but if INEC officials are honest with themselves, they will admit that a large part of the blame must be laid at their doorsteps.

In fairness to INEC it seems to have anticipated a huge potential voter turn out by printing 70,000,000 registration forms, according to inside sources. During the last exercise in 1998, it registered close to 50,000,000 voters. This was slightly under 50% of the estimated 104.5 million Nigerians of the country at the time, given our estimated 2.5 per cent annual growth rate. Given the fact that our last census in 1991 put the adult population of the country, i.e. 18 and above, at about 46.5% of the entire population, the registration of about 50,000,000 voters in 1998 was obviously somewhat exaggerated.

Today, the country’s population is estimated at roughly 120,000,000 which is probably also an exaggeration assuming that the 1991 census was accurate, which has generally been the accepted view. At 2.5 per cent growth rate, our 1991 population of just under 89,000,000 should today be around 114,000,000. However, using even the higher figure of 120,000,000, it is obvious that INEC’s provision of 70,000,000 registration forms was more than adequate since the adult population of the country is unlikely to have grown to more than 60,000,000.

Yet a huge, even if as yet indeterminate number, of Nigerians could not register by the weekend to vote in the next coming elections. INEC has blamed hoarding of the registration forms to which the temporary voters’ cards are attached, for the registration fiasco. INEC’s explanation is valid to some extent though it is difficult, if not impossible, to tell to what extent.

However, the problem with hoarding as an explanation, or more accurately, as an excuse, for the fiasco, is that it is hardly helpful without identifying who among the political actors have the means as well as the motive to hoard the forms. INEC, it seems, has no word to say about these issues of means and motives.

It is obvious that both those in power and the opposition have the motive to hoard the forms – such is the perverseness of the distrust of the fairness and even-handedness of INEC as the referee in the electoral process. INEC, especially under its current Chairman, Mr. Abel Goubadia, must accept a considerable portion of the blame for creating this distrust. It must accept the facts that (1) it was partisan in its handling of the factionalization of the Alliance for Democracy over two years ago, (2) it was equally partisan in handling the cases of carpet crossing senators last year, (3) it was initially reluctant to register new political parties and, (4) its has currently been embroiled in a serious bribery scandal involving one of its National Commission, among other things, have all combined to call its integrity and credibility into question.

However, while it is undeniable that these serious flaws in INEC – especially in its leadership – have served to undermine its integrity and credibility, the greater blame for putting a question mark on the commission’s independence must go to the Presidency. First, it deliberately refused to release money in time for INEC to conduct the exercise two years ago when INEC would have had enough time to do a decent job. Instead, it waited until its hands was forced into releasing the money by a Supreme Court ruling that said the National Assembly (apparently working hand-in-glove with a Presidency that never wanted local government elections before the next presidential election) had no power to extend the tenure of local governments. Even then, the Presidency carried on with its delaying tactics to the very last minute.

Second, and more importantly, it indulged in a gratuitous wholesale sack of the Resident Electoral Commissioners sometimes this year and replaced virtually all of them with PDP men and women. This was a clear signal that the Presidency was not prepared to play the game fair and square.

Third, and even more importantly still, the Presidency had attempted to rig the Electoral Law in its own favour, by limiting the voters’ choice to the hitherto existing three parties at the same time that it also tried to cripple the two opposition parties by causing divisions within their ranks.

It should be obvious from all this that whereas both those in power and those in opposition have a motive to hoard the registration forms, those in power have, by far, the greater means to do so. To that extent the greater blame for the voter’s registration fiasco must go first and foremost to the Presidency and then to the ruling PDP. Of course, power has been shared among the three hitherto existing parties at all three levels of government, but the PDP controls the centre, governs 24 states out of 36 and about 475 local governments out of 774. Clearly there is an overwhelming domination of the polity by the PDP, which, in turn seems to be dominated completely by the Presidency.

Because of the Presidency’s tazarce (sit-tight) agenda, there is widespread suspicion that INEC, through its Resident Commissioners, has deliberately starved sections of the country known or suspected to be hostile to the Presidency of the registration forms while over-supplying those areas where the Presidency believes it has support.

To the extent that the greater blame for the voter registration fiasco must go to the Presidency and the PDP, to that extent can INEC redeem its integrity and credibility by henceforth asserting its independence over its handling of the electoral process. Recently, its Chairman wrote the Minister of Justice of the Federation to protest Federal Government interference in its affairs. It is good that INEC has picked up courage to speak out, even though it seems rather late in the day. However, speaking out against outside interference is not enough.

The test of its independence is in the doing and not merely in speaking out. The first sure sign that it is prepared to assert its independence will be how it handles the verification phase of the exercise in the next two months. If it allows itself to be browbeaten into disenfranchising a large proportion of Nigerians simply because those in power will not countenance the possibility of defeat at the polls, then the INEC leadership will have to shoulder the greater blame for the much bigger fiasco that will inevitably result from any attempt by anyone to rig the elections.

The odds against INEC’s success at keeping the Presidency at bay are high, but given the level of the personal integrity that many of its National Commissioners and its Executive Secretary have built for themselves down the years, it will be a sad end to their illustrious career if they allow themselves to be cowed by those odds into not trying at all. It is, after all, better to try and fail than to be identified as part of a grand design to frustrate the political will of the voters of this country.