Information Technology Manipulations in 2015 Elections (1)

There were lots of inadequacies in the technology used in the elections, contends

The 2015 general elections have been concluded with winners and losers declared. Unexpectedly, in the presidential race, Nigerians witnessed, for the first time in our political history, an incumbent calling the winner to congratulate him ahead of the final result. This may well be the hand of God in Nigeria’s political evolution as that seeming simple act of making a telephone call might well have saved many lives; what with the preceding heated electioneering campaigns and the reputed bad sportsmanship of African politicians. But the unexpected happened and Nigerians and, indeed, the rest of the world rejoiced over the peaceful conclusion of the 2015 elections.

However, as an Information Technology expert l feel compelled to comment on the latent gross inadequacies of the IT methodology that was employed in the 2015 elections. But for the considerable weight of these inadequacies l would have let sleeping dogs lie, but the abuses are rather weighty.

The need to expose these gross abuses of our adopted electoral processes becomes paramount because if we fail to recognise these shortcomings and diligently correct them, our future democratic governance will continue to operate on a quick sand of sorts with no solid foundation. To guide this write-up we need to first review INEC as the appointed umpire whose roles need to be carefully reviewed and also the voters who constitute the masses being governed. This write-up is therefore very crucial because if these electoral distortions are not resolved prior to 2019, Nigeria would surely face higher risks of violence and disintegration as predicted for 2015. Providence has thus provided us with one more chance to reflect on our past mistakes, find solutions and task ourselves to resolve these mistakes.

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has come a long way since 2011 in trying to make the Nigerian electoral process transparent, as a way of ensuring that elections are free, fair and credible, and that it would measure up to global best standards of democratic elections. In the 2011 elections, a whopping sum of N136 billion was spent to finance the elections. This huge amount could be the annual budget of some African nations. But in spite of extravagant media blitz by declared winners at the elections an avalanche of protests followed on the heels of the 2011 elections. These protests emerged from the councils, states and even the presidential election. If virtually every contender for elective office who lost in those elections headed straight to the tribunals to challenge the elections results, including the presidential, INEC could not in good conscience tell the world that it conducted fair elections in 2011, let alone credible elections.

The mission statement of INEC is “To serve as an independent and effective management body committed to the conduct of free, fair and credible election for sustainable democracy in Nigeria.” Has INEC lived up to the billings? Indeed, has the electoral body fulfilled its obligatory mission of sustaining democracy in Nigeria? This question would understandably elicit a wide range of answers, but most of such answers are bound to lack in-depth analysis, since INEC near-opaque operations do not lend themselves to external scrutiny. The history of elections in Nigeria is a mixed grill of barely verified facts and convenient fiction. But it’s time to unearth the bitter truth about elections in the most populous black nation on the planet.

Nigeria has provided INEC with the statutory powers and robust financial base as an Independent body to conduct free, fair and credible elections but, disappointingly, the electoral commission has not been able to deliver on its mission statement due to evident administrative incompetence. The proceeding paragraphs would attempt to highlight some of the less latent administrative lapses.

Although the 2015 general elections were termed to be credible by international observers and media houses with their different political affiliations among others; none of the aforesaid had preceded their pronouncements with proper factual analysis of the elections. Such destabilising factors that had undermined the integrity of elections in Nigeria had not been duly considered. These factors include: non-existence of voter registration database based on Permanent Voters Card, (PVC); underage voters; fraudulent accreditation exercise; disenfranchisement of citizen civic right to vote; card readers whose SIM cards were never connected to any network in Nigeria nor linked with INEC server data centre.

To further illustrate how the extant inadequacies in INEC undermine Nigeria’s democracy let us briefly examine the 2011 elections. At the conclusion of general elections in April 2011, INEC supposedly completed the two central assignments it set for itself at inception in July 2010; namely: the compilation of new voters, which led to the issuance of Temporary Voters Card,(TVC) and the conduct of the 2011 general elections. Though in the public eye these central assignments were adjudged successfully concluded, however, INEC knew that the assignments were far from concluded. Consequently, in line with INEC mission statement, INEC decided to carry out a comprehensive evaluation of the registration of voters. To achieve this, INEC set up a three-pronged process, which were:

The need for INEC staffs to internally review their performances critically with regards to both assignments; to have review meetings with major stakeholders to jointly and transparently critique the works of INEC during registration and the general elections, and finally; to set up an independent body to review the registration of voters exercise and the general elections. This gave rise to the formation of Registration and Elections Review Committee (RERC).

The RERC terms of engagement were duly made known to the committee by INEC. The RERC members were persons of proven integrity with requisite experiences in electoral administration and research.

The RERC concluded report was submitted to INEC prior to the