Our Legislators and e-polls’ Results
Avid observers of Nigeria’s electoral process would be utterly dismayed by events leading to the rejection of electronic transmission of election results by the National Assembly.
Before the voting by both chambers, there were feelers that vested interests feeding fat from the flawed electoral process were out to play a fast one albeit, to the detriment of free, fair and credible elections. Their target was to expunge from the Electoral Act amendment bill, the provision that mandated the Independent National Electoral Commission INEC to transmit election results electronically and shore up public confidence in the process.
The original clause recommended by the committee, had stated that “INEC may transit results of elections by electronic means where practicable”. But the amendment that was approved by both chambers of the national assembly after heated debate and walk-outs stated, “INEC may consider electronic transmission of results provided the national network coverage is adjudged to be adequate and secure by the National Communications Commission and approved by the National Assembly”
This is seen to have ousted from the INEC, the powers to decide the mode of elections in any given circumstance. That power can now only be exercised with the approval of the NCC and the national assembly contrary to the powers conferred on INEC by the 1999 constitution (as amended)
Section 78 of the constitution provides that the “registration of voters and the conduct of elections shall be subject to the direction and supervision of the Independent National Electoral Commission”. The same constitution further empowers the INEC to organize and supervise all elections while its operations shall not be subject to the direction of anybody or authority.
By requiring the INEC to secure the approval of the NCC, an agency under the presidency before deploying the electronic mode of transmitting results, the new bill has obviously compromised the independence of that body. Additionally, it exposes the electoral umpire to the whims and caprices of the executive which detracts substantially from the assumed independence of the electoral body. Given the experience of the country in election matters, there is no guarantee that the government in power will not find this clause another avenue to manipulate the outcome of elections. In fact, suspicions are high that it is a subterfuge for indirect control of the INEC by the executive.
The constitution that guarantees the independence of INEC from the interference of other arms of the government, did not envisage a situation whereby it will take instructions from bodies that have nothing to do with the organization and conduct of elections. Subsuming INEC decisions to the approval of the NCC is anomalous and an infringement on the constitution. Though the national assembly is empowered to make laws for the good governance of the country, the legislators went out of their way by requiring INEC to approach them for endorsement each time it proposes to deploy technology for the transmission of election results.
That demand is largely administrative and has nothing to do with the law making functions of the legislature. The national assembly makes broad laws for order and good governance of the country and leaves their implementation to the relevant authorities. Requiring the INEC to approach it through the NCC each time it wants to deploy technology for election results’ transmission is another guise for subjecting the functions of the electoral body to both the NCC and the national assembly. The arrangement is fraught with grave danger with prospects of compromising election outcome.
How to go about elections, the way to go about them to enhance their overall credibility and secure the confidence of the electorate are essentially decisions that should be left to the INEC. The decision as to when and where to deploy election-enhancing technology falls within the ambit of the powers guaranteed INEC by the constitution. Allowing the INEC to function without dictation from outside creates for fair assessment of the electoral body by the public. It ensures they take responsibility for their actions and inactions during elections.
A situation that gives room for buck-passing or the trading of blames after elections should be avoided like a plague. INEC should be allowed to rise and fall together with their decisions after each election. Anything to the contrary is to place huddles on the road to free, fair and credible election and therefore cannot deepen democracy on these shores. That is why fair-minded Nigerians have taken turns to lampoon the national assembly for being less than futuristic in shooting down innovations whose time have come.
Two issues raised by our legislators for clumsily voting for subjecting INEC decisions to approvals by them and the NCC hinge on alleged low network coverage of the country and the fear of hacking of election results. Those who propose these views claim that wholesale application of electronic results’ transfer technology could also complicate issues where there are no adequate network or in case of malfunctioning. If that is the case, then the committees’ initial recommendation requiring INEC to transmit election results by electronic means where ‘practicable’ takes adequate care of the situation.
For one, it is in consonance with the powers guaranteed the electoral body by the constitution. It protects the independence of INEC by ensuring that it takes direct responsibility for actions and inaction of its functionaries during elections usually characterized by rancour and cut-throat competition. It also diminishes the possibility of buck-passing and blame trading that would obviously arise when externals are involved in decisions as to when and in what circumstance the electoral body will perform its functions. A scintilla of government’s influence through the NCC will obviously complicate issues.
The arrangement is clumsy and the reasons adduced for it non-convincing. It is also a weak argument to contend that we should do away with technology because of hacking. Technology is constantly responding to the dynamics of the environment. It is myopic to do away with technology because of some limitations. The task before a progressive society is to respond to the dynamics of the situation, making desired changes where necessary. Many of the technological innovations in use today came with limitations including medicine. Yet, we have not run away from them because of limitations or their side effects. Even with the controversy on the efficacy of the COVID-19 inoculations, highly placed people are still taking it. So, the excuse of hacking for rejecting electronic transmission of results is patently escapist and not borne out of genuine interest to deepen our democracy that is perilously assailed and flawed by do-or-die competition.
The case for electronic transfer of elections results is borne out of our bad experiences during elections. With the innovation made by the INEC in accreditation of voters, the publication of results at the polling units and the use of card readers, manipulation of election outcomes were reduced to the barest minimum at the polling units. The next measure that will nail finally those intending to manipulate elections lies in their direct transfer electronically to the collation centres. With electronic transfer, criminals who waylay and hijack results being conveyed to the collation centres would be completely cut off with overall efficiency in their outcome.
That is the kernel of the argument. That was the fight that ensued at the national assembly. It was a fight between those who desired improvement in the outcome of elections and those who preferred the decadent status quo. It is needless papering these two tendencies. The intentions are clear. Is it surprising that both chambers of the national assembly voted along party lines on an issue that should have evoked common interest and consensus?
It is a huge disappointment that our lawmakers could not see beyond partisan predilections; forge national consensus to deepen democracy and move the country forward. Those who voted in favour of subsuming the powers of INEC under the NCC and the national assembly are the enemies of democracy. Selfish interest either of the personal or partisan hue is behind it all.
The bill must not be allowed to see the light of the day since INEC has said it has capacity to conduct electronically transferred results with a high degree of success. Our lawmakers must show commitment to laws that enhance the sovereignty of the electorate at the ballot box to deepen representative democracy.
