2023 election: EU observers fault INEC’s impotence, secrecy for low public confidence
Get real time updates directly on you device, subscribe now.
The European Union Election Observation Mission (EU EOM) for Nigeria’s 2023 General Elections has faulted the institutional deficiencies, as well as lack of transparency and access to key information, of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for the low public confidence witnessed during the 2023 general election.
In its “Final Report, General Elections, 25 February and 18 March 2023” released on June 28, 2023, EU EOM stated that the low public confidence in the process adversely affected the conduct of the elections.
Speaking on electoral administration and the structure and composition of the election administration, the group noted that public confidence and trust in INEC were severely damaged due to lack of transparency and operational failures in the conduct of the federal level polls.
It also blamed INEC for delayed and insufficient explanations for those failures, adding that until the end of the electoral process, INEC continued to abstain from providing information.
EU EOM also regretted that INEC limited communication to a few press releases and ceremonial statements but failed to address public grievances and rebuild confidence.
The report stated:
“INEC’s performance and reputation improved significantly after the 2019 elections with various advances including the use of new technology, giving stakeholders hope for improved elections.
“Prior to the 2023 presidential polls, stakeholders had expressed confidence in INEC’s independence. INEC collaborated with state agencies to discuss various issues, including electoral security.
“However, INEC’s communication strategy was limited to sharing often vague information through stakeholder consultations and press conferences. Key electoral procedures and precise electoral data were not published in a timely manner.
“This included safeguards for the integrity and reliability of the BVAS, the process of collecting PVCs, voter registration updates or the rationale of court orders changing candidate lists and result processes.
“Adequate and prompt publication of such information would have enhanced transparency and lent greater certainty to the process.
“Public confidence and trust in INEC were severely damaged due to lack of transparency and operational failures in the conduct of the federal level polls and INEC’s delayed and insufficient explanations for those failures.
“Until the end of the electoral process, INEC continued to abstain from providing information, limiting its communication to a few press releases and ceremonial statements, and hence failing to address public grievances and rebuild confidence.”
EU EOM further noted that INEC independence and performance may have been hamstrung by the fact that it is not really independent as its officials, including the Chairman, who is the Chief Electoral Commissioner, and twelve other commissioners, are handpicked by the President.
The report further stated:
“INEC is a constitutionally independent body composed of a Chairman (Chief Electoral Commissioner) and twelve other commissioners with extensive responsibilities, including organising all elections down to state level, registering and monitoring political parties, registering voters, delimiting constituencies and prosecuting of electoral offences.
“The Resident Electoral Commissioners (REC) operating at state level perform the functions delegated by INEC. The INEC commissioners and the RECs are directly appointed by the President, subject to confirmation by the Senate. INEC maintains permanent offices across the 36 states, the FCT and 774 LGA.
Related Posts
“The Constitution provides that all members of INEC are strictly non-partisan. At the same time, there is no legal requirement that their selection be undertaken according to merit and qualification to ensure the independence and efficiency of the institution.
“CSO examination of the selection process signalled that the selection process of both INEC commissioners and RECs were neither transparent nor in line with the non-partisan requirement.”
The group also raised concerns about the professional skills and background of the selection of some commissioners as the selection process leaves the electoral institution vulnerable to being viewed as aligned with the government.
It added: “Following the federal-level elections, RECs were mandated by INEC to bar all staff found to be negligent from conducting the elections.
“However, only a few key electoral officials were held accountable, despite the scale of election day failings across the country, as observed by the EU EOM in particular in the South-East, the South-South, Kano and Lagos.
“The RECs in Abia and Sokoto were suspended without clear public explanations and their role filled by administrative secretaries.
“INEC has the power to withdraw powers from the RECs but cannot legally dismiss them as they too are presidentially-appointed officers.
“This exposes further systemic weakness in the electoral institutional design that obstructs fostering of professionalism and trust.”
In its priority recommendation, EU EOM demanded establishment of a robust operational framework for the independence, integrity, and efficiency of electoral administration through an inclusive and publicly accountable mechanism for selecting candidates to the posts of INEC commissioners and RECs based on clear criteria of evaluation of merits, qualifications, and verified non-partisanship.
Read also:
What Nigeria must do to improve electoral processes — EU election observers
—
