By Omoniyi Salaudeen
It’s exactly 56 days before the Imo, Bayelsa, and Kogi state governorship elections will hold. Except for any change of arrangement, the three off-season elections will be held on November 11, precisely less than two months away.
This is according to the timetable and schedule of activities released by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). The release is in line with Sections 178(1) and (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 mandating the Commission to conduct such elections not earlier than 150 days and not later than 30 days before the expiration of the term of the last holder of the office.
Constitutionally, the tenure of the incumbent Governor of Imo State ends on January 14, 2024, while those of Kogi and Bayelsa States end on January 26, 2024, and February 13, 2024, respectively.
Though with much skepticism, preparation is gradually building toward the conduct of the elections. Ahead of the D-day, the Commission has already released the final list of candidates participating in the polls following voluntary withdrawal and substitution of candidates by political parties.
Section 32(1) of the Electoral Act 2022 requires the publication of the list not later than 150 days before the election.
The list shows that all 18 political parties are fielding candidates in Kogi State, 17 in Imo State, and 16 in Bayelsa State.
Two political parties are said to be fielding female candidates in Bayelsa State, one in Kogi State, and none in Imo State.
Having concluded all arrangements regarding the schedule of activities, the highlight of public discussion is now the transparency of the process. The umpire has had to grapple with a huge trust deficit following its inability to transmit the results of the Presidential and National Assembly elections to the IReV portal in real-time. The introduction of BVAS technology had raised public excitement about the credibility and transparency of the electoral process before the conduct of the February 25 presidential poll, but the backlash of non-transmission of results has resulted in a huge public distrust. As a result, both the candidates of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Atiku Abubakar, and Peter Obi of the Labour Party have been entangled in a prolonged legal battle seeking to upturn the victory of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.One of the grounds of their petitions against the INEC at the tribunal is the refusal to transmit results electronically to the server for public viewing as earlier promised by INEC, citing technical glitches as the reason for opting for manual transmission.
However, the five-man panel led by Justice Haruna Tsammani in a unanimous judgment held that there was “nothing in the Electoral Act 2022 specifically states that BVAS should be used to transmit election result,” adding that neither the Electoral Act nor INEC manual specifically provided for electronic transmission.”
Against this background, concerned stakeholders have engaged in the debate about the imperative or otherwise of the need for the umpire to adhere to electronic transmission during the conduct of the forthcoming off-season elections in Imo, Bayelsa, and Kogi states.
The National Publicity Secretary of the Labour Party, Obiora Ifoh, who dismissed the excuse of technical glitches as a deliberate act of sabotage in a telephone discourse with Sunday Sun, maintained that challenges experienced in the last election must be avoided in the coming elections.
He said: “Let me first say that the technology of transmitting results to IReV is good and there is no problem with it. It worked perfectly during the last election only that they tried to stop a particular candidate from winning by not transmitting the result. Everything went perfectly during the National Assembly election, but when it came to the presidential election, it stopped working. It was purely a human fault. Don’t forget that Nigeria spent N350 billion to procure the BVAS technology, and it was proven to be sound and infallible by technology experts. So, the glitches you saw that day were manmade. It has nothing to do with the machine.
“Having said that, the challenge we had in the last election should be avoided in the coming off-season elections, particularly in Imo State. As I talk to you now, INEC has put up a staff structure that is loyal to the governor and willing to work for the state government. By next week, we are going to make a formal appeal to the police service. We will address a press conference on this next week. So, the problem is not going to come from IReV, it is from the same character that truncated the effort of the Nigerian government in bringing forth a reliable election.”
Chief Okorie Chekwas, in a counter opinion, insisted that there is no enactment to compel INEC to transmit any result electronically to the serve in the coming elections. He had this to say: “One lesson political parties and their candidates must have learned from the recent judgment of the Appeal Court on Peter Obi and Atiku petitions is that INEC is not compelled by law to transmit results even when they have promised to do so. Failure to do so will not make them liable for any breach of the law. So, until the Electoral Law is amended, which is one of the challenges of the National Assembly, INEC is not under obligation to transmit results.
“What I will advise political parties to do is to ensure that they have agents accredited by INEC to monitor the election at every polling unit, collect the form EC8A and diligently follow the results to the collation centre and report to their principals.
“In 2003, when I was the National Chairman and founder of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA), we made sure we had our agents in all the polling units in Anambra State. The result showed that Peter Obi won that election, but PDP went somewhere to write a different result which was declared as authentic by the INEC and Chris Ngige as the winner. However, it was easy to detect that APGA result sheets were authentic because we had our agents in all the polling units. That was how Peter was able to win the case at the tribunal. In spite of the fact that the people who contested the election with us had far larger war chess in terms of money than our candidate, the tribunal had no choice but to give judgment to the rightful winner. I had said it earlier before the Appeal Court gave the recent judgment that other parties didn’t have enough evidence to prove that they won the election. One of them didn’t even have agents in certain locations. It is the form EC8A that is superior to results on the IReV portal. So, they lost from the beginning.
“The bulk of responsibility is on the political parties rather than the INEC because it is the political parties that will file petitions that they have been cheated and the Court of Appeal has already said that the onus is on the petitioners to prove his allegation. INEC that declared result will always be there to defend it. It has become clear that there are still certain things to be amended in the Electoral Act and the constitution to make it mandatory for the INEC to transmit results electronically so that the idea of giving excuses will not arise again.”
Chief Kokori Frank also joined the fray, accusing the Labour Party of unjustly castigating the INEC.
He said: “It is a pity that the Labour Party and Peter Obi have decided to wage a war of calumny against the INEC. I think the INEC has done its best in the history of elections in this country. The reason is because of the introduction of BVAS technology into our electoral process which has significantly reduced the incidence of rigging. If not for the BVAS, how could he (Obi) have come close to the figures recorded by Tinubu and Atiku? To me, BVAS is a game changer. In my area here, Obi did not even have agents in any polling unit. Yet, he won the majority of votes in most of the states in the South-south. But there is so much propaganda by his mob followers that the election was rigged.
“The judgment of the Appeal Court is so sound that it does not need any explanation from any lawyer. Even a layman can understand the judgment because the judges dissected every issue one by one. I wonder what they are taking to the Supreme Court for, giving the country a lot of tension. Supreme Court will be more ruthless on them in its ruling this time around for coming with frivolous claims, wasting the time of judges.”
Arguably, INEC has a huge responsibility to conduct free, fair, and credible elections in these states to reduce the tension in the country. Since the conduct of the last general election, the polity has been inundated with inflammatory comments, innuendoes, and incendiary remarks threatening the integrity of the judiciary. In extreme cases, some unrestrained individuals have even instigated military intervention dismissing the last election as an aberration to genuine democratic governance. The electoral umpire will do a lot of good to the country by restoring confidence in the system and ensuring a transparent and credible process during the forthcoming elections in the affected states.”