The Independent National Electoral Commission (the Commission) is the body set up to conduct elections into the various elective offices in Nigeria exempting those of the state local government councils in the country. It is a body meant to be independent and impartial, as the name suggests, in the conduct of its affairs. Towards the last election, the Commission boasted of having the technological capacity ever witnessed in the country in the conduct of elections. A lot of new developments in the electoral business towards ensuring the conduct of free and fair elections in the country came on board. Right from registration where permanent voter’s card became the evidence of eligibility to vote, through the creation of the electronic voters’ register, the use of Biomodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) in the accreditation of eligible voters, to the electronic transmission of results. 
Through the various educational and enlightenment outreaches and advocacy, the Commission was able to convince an average Nigerian of the potential of conducting a transparent election. Undoubtedly, this galvanized a lot of eligible voters to register and trooped out on the days of the various general elections, with the expectation and hope that this will be a different election in the history of Nigeria. The political party’s campaigns equally aided the participation of the greater number of Nigerians, particularly the middle class and the elite who, in the past, were often lackadaisical in the use of their franchise. Strangely, however, the multitude referred to above can only be in terms of the unusual voters, that is, persons other than the traditional voters who used to be the vulnerable. As remarked above, the presidential election particularly witnessed the turnout of the elite, who in the past never took interest in the country’s elections.
The excuse of the elite used to be that they lacked confidence and trust in the electoral process. The point I am struggling to make here is that, despite the gigantic interest shown in the elections, the outcome did not indicate any improvement in voters’ apathy that was becoming a pattern in the country. The previous elections witnessed the turn out of 29,432,083 voters in 2015 and 28,614,190 voters in 2019. This last election of 2023, however, turned out 25,286,616 voters in all in the presidential election. The interpretation of this implies so many things, the main of which is that the use of technology such as BVAS in the accreditation process has reduced largely the incidents of multiple thumbprinting and ballot stuffing, which means that the previous elections experience such vices on a large scale. The enthusiasm shown by the new category of voters became however dampened when most of the promises of the Commission in the efficient management of the elections turned out to be fake news. In the bid of the Commission to market its capability, it overpromised and under-delivered as it failed to realise that the first thing to master and perfect is the technological capacity to ensure effective performance by which the glitches it suffered would not have occurred. For instance, the real time transmission of results suffered several glitches which the Commission probably did not envisage out of grandstanding. I say this because every user of technology knows that there are always chances of errors in the performance of such devices and equipment.
While the Electoral Act provides for instances of failure of BVAS machines by way of seeking replacement or rescheduling the election in the affected units, same cannot be said of the situation of glitches in electronic transmission. Again, while the Act does not specifically provide for real time transmission which is remote in a country like ours where the technological capacity is unenviable, the officials engaged in atrocious interpretation and probable misuse of language in their communications. Some of these issues have now become object of agitation before the court and the Tribunals. That is not to say that failure of real-time transmission of results onto the server has any effect on the validity of the results obtained in the polling units as the mode of delivery of results is entirely a different ball game when the authenticity of the results itself is the key issue. Electronic transmission of results is meant to guarantee transparency to build voters’ confidence in the results and the failure to effectively transmit onto the server may not necessarily destroy the authenticity of the results.
However, since these are issues that are sub judice, I will refrain from commenting further on them. Anyway, my concern in this conversation is the further ineptitude of the Commission in the delivery of electoral justice in the nation. By the law of the country, where any candidate is aggrieved by the outcome of the elections, such candidate is expected to seek redress in the tribunals by way of petition. In interrogating his right in this regard, such a candidate is expected to join the Commission in any such action that he filed as it is the body that conducted the election. In most of the cases before the Tribunals, except the declared winner takes his destiny into his hands, the Commission is never naturally there to defend its acts. The petitioner who is the aggrieved party needs to go a mile extra to commit the Commission to do the needful and right things in the defence of its conducts. This is, however, not my main destination as aggrieved candidates seem or appear to have found a way around this.
My major concern, which is the focus of this engagement, is the ever reluctance of the Commission to release the material documents required by parties to prove their cases. Notwithstanding that the Electoral Act provides for access to the materials by way of inspection, investigation and release to the desirous party upon payment of the relevant official fees, the Commission, in most cases, have proved to be irresponsible in this regard. Probably except in the presidential election cases in respect of which I understand that the Commission has released all relevant documents to the parties, it has grossly failed in respect of the cases like National Assembly petitions, the governorship petitions and the House of Assembly petitions. This is notwithstanding that the refusal, neglect or failure to oblige the desirous parties is punishable and sanctioned. Even in the face of court order that such access be granted and the relevant party be issued the required documents, the Commission has mostly been found wanting in the obedience of court orders. Most parties to the election petitions wherein they seek electoral justice desire the certified true copies of the documents used in the conduct of the elections, not only for the purpose of analysis but even prosecuting their cases in court by way of tendering as exhibits. The release and certification are hardly ever forthcoming.
While either party has twenty-one days to file their documents, access to and release of the documents is often frustrated beyond the said statutory period. The worst hit in this respect is usually the Respondents to the petition who must accompany their response with the relevant documents they intend to rely upon at the trial. Most petitions involve issues of overvoting and corrupt practices which essentially involve the comparison of the BVAS report with the Form EC8A which is the official result from the polling units. Getting a BVAS report is a herculean task. In fact, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eyes of a needle than for an applicant for a BVAS report to get it. I am a victim of this in some of the election petition matters I am handling. In virtually all of them, until the filing of our processes in the tribunal, we were unable to obtain the certified true copies of the BVAS report.
Apart from the fact that such report can only be procured from the headquarters of the Commission, the protocol around the procurement is not only complex but cumbersome. After surviving this tortuous process, you are then met with the excuse that the Chairman of the Commission who is to approve the release of document is unavailable. In my case, while it was said to me that another official was acting for the Chairman, the personality involved was equally unavailable.
This is the way and manner that the Commission has constituted itself into a stumbling block in the realization of electoral justice. Without this germane document, a petitioner is hardly able to prove his case before the court or any tribunal. The Commission has now succeeded in earning for itself the appellation of electoral justice saboteur. One would have thought that with the various condemnations the Commission received in the conduct of the last elections, it would be ready and willing to shore up its image by being up and doing. Kaka k’o san ni ara omo iya aje, o fi gbogbo omo e bi obinrin is the appropriate aphorism to describe the nature and tendency of the Commission. This literally means rather than the situation improving with the Commission, I dare say that it is degenerating. This gives room to those aggrieved to continue to denigrate the Commission which is fast collapsing. There is hardly any iota of efficiency in its activities in this regard. The stakeholders at this stage might need to rise up and demand propriety on the part of the Commission. It is important we do not allow the Commission to sink our collective dream of the emergence of credible leaders. If the Commission does not know the implication of its acts or omissions, it needs to appreciate that where the aggrieved parties cannot find solace in the tribunals and courts, anarchy and chaos become the only available options at their disposal. The country cannot afford this. This, therefore, requires all of us to cry out in ensuring that the Commission wakes up to do the right thing.