ELECTORAL ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT AND THE 2011 ELECTIONS

          I was tempted to take liberties with the legendary generosity and accommodation of my good friend, Father Matthew Kukah to give this presentation the title “Can we panic, now?” because I started writing on the day the Senate of the Federal Republic threw out President Goodluck Jonathan’s Electoral Act 2010 Amendment Bill in a most undignifying and humiliating manner. The Senate’s reaction to the overloaded Bill was expected and welcome, and a Senator described the Bill as being full of toxic elements and viruses. But the Senate initially threw the baby out with the bathwater: the rejection of the Bill in total foreclosed the possibility that the single-issue trigger to the Bill, that is, the genuine case made by INEC for shifting the dates for the elections from January to April, 2011, could have been considered on its own merit. As it stands, and as I write this paper, it looks the National Assembly will have to dig deep into its reservoir of patriotism and sensitivity to national interests to knock together an amendment that deals only with INEC’s timelines and adjudication of petitions, and throw everything else out. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives will also have to fast track the process in such a way that the amendment process will be completed before the end of the second week of November. Otherwise, INEC and the nation will face very real challenges which will severely compromise the quality of the elections, if they hold at all! The longer we argue and delay affecting and concluding the amendment, the more we will deprive INEC of the time it needs to put out new timelines for activities demanded by law, including, significantly, producing an entirely new Voters Register! INEC is at the mercy of crass and damaging opportunism which jeopardise the 2011 elections literally by the day. We are in a race to political apocalypse, in a manner engineered to slow the process of preparing for the 2011 elections to a point where they will have no value, or not hold at all! The production of a new electronic voters register alone could take up most of the space available, and to conduct the exercise in the context of full blown political activity will pose major management problems for INEC. 

          There couldn’t be a better setting to capture how hopelessly dependent INEC has always been on political forces outside its control than the present, which I thought also represents a good introduction to

a topic which seeks to explore challenges to election management and

administration in Nigeria. The real irony today is that we have a Chairman and Commissioners in INEC generally considered beyond reproach in their levels of integrity and proven competence and a transparent commitment to conduct free and fair elections; yet this INEC is enmeshed in a worst nightmare possible: it cannot move an inch until powerful interests play out their battles. INEC is captive to the very forces it is intended to be independent from.

HOW FREE IS INDEPENDENT?

          I was told by some National Commissioners of INEC who served from 1998 to 2004 the genesis of the word ‘Independent’ which was added to the new National Electoral Commission by the military administration in 1998. So vehement were most of them in their demand for proof of willingness of the military to allow them operate freely and independently, a demand spearheaded by the late Chairman, Justice Tayo Akpata himself, that they secured an agreement to append the qualifying word  ‘Independent’ to the Commission. Even at that, many of them remained stubbornly reluctant to be appointed, and it took all manner of persuasion from highly respected quarters to convince many of them to accept to serve. The Constitution also guarantees that in the normal discharge of its function, INEC is not to take instruction or orders from any person or body.

          It must have been expected by these great men and women, most of them with pristine records in life, that the name of the organisation and the legal safeguards in the INEC’s law will shield them from undue interference and influence from the Military, Political Parties and all other institutions and organizations with stakes in the outcomes of elections. They must have also assumed that such independence will guarantee that they will receive all reasonable funding and other administrative support they will require to conduct free and fair elections. These expectations were to be severely questioned. Not long into the life of the Commission, following the rather localised performance of one of the Associations in the Local Government Elections which were intended to serve as one of the criteria to qualify for registration as political parties, the Commission and the Military had a major disagreement which was to test its independence. The initial decision of the Commission was that the Association had failed to achieve a major criterion for registration which was spread, and therefore could not be registered. The military administration, on the other hand, was involved in a major political mission of engineering an all-inclusive political process which will both address the crises which arose from the aborted elections of 1992, as well as ensure that the elections of 1999 had everyone on board.

WHO IS YOUR FATHER?

In spite of the fierce and principled resistance of the Commission it was ‘prevailed’ upon by the Military administration to register this Association as a Political Party. Other Parties of course cried to the high heavens, but the rest, as they say, is history. This Political Party is today one of the largest Parties in the nation, the military showed it had the clout to breach INEC’s independence, and INEC itself showed a vulnerability to buckle under pressure. In retrospect, it could be argued that both INEC in 1998 and the Military administration recognised the strategic political imperative to ensure that a key segment of the nation is incorporated into the emerging democratic process, but the point remains that INEC had to re-visit its own rules and guidelines as a result of political pressure.

          Even in the rather tame and sedate atmosphere under which the preparations and conduct of the 1999 elections were managed, the independence of the Commission and the will of the political leadership to have its way clashed on a number of occasions. The calibre and integrity of the Chairman and Commissioners was a key element in the relations between the Commission and the military. So was the transparent commitment of the military to hand over to an elected leadership in 1999. The nation was just waking up to the possibility that the military may be serious about handing over this time around. But the understandably high levels of cynicism and pronounced resistance by key segments of the political elite to the military’s democratization programme was still a major issue. Above all, there was palpable consensus between the military leadership and key elements of the political elite, principally from the North, that the democratic dispensation should not only re-integrate the mainstream Yoruba people into the political process, but that former President Olusegun Obasanjo should be supported to become the President.

          The issue of elite consensus around fundamentals which should govern the rules of the electoral contest as well as its possible outcomes is central to the manner in which elections are managed. Election management in Nigeria reflects the disposition of the dominant elite around, and in the build up to elections, and all the three elections held since 1999 have reflected in some measure the nature of the disposition of the elite. In 1998-1999, a congruence of interest between the military and key fractions of the ruling elite produced a PDP victory with President Obasanjo as President. In 2003, the in-roads made by the opposition particularly the emergence of the Buhari factor into the political terrain, and the emerging dominance of a strong President, Olusegun Obasanjo who learnt the lessons of building his own political base as a result of the fall-out with his Deputy, resulted in a consolidation of both PDP and emergence of large swathe of non-PDP areas in the country. The 2007 elections reflected the near-total dominance of the PDP, which itself derived from the pervasive influence of the outgoing President Obasanjo.  

          This is, of course, a simplification of a much more complex phenomenon. The point here is that the dynamics of elite politics, or dominance of fractions of that elite, or even a ‘strongman’ like Obasanjo have major influence on electoral competition and outcomes.  INEC is not immune to these influences, much as it would like to be. I have alluded to the issue of the registration of an Association against the initial resistance of the Commission. Between 2000 and 2003 elections, the Commission was involved in countless fights for funding and both in quantities and in times of availability, in court cases and disputes over the 2001 and 2002 Electoral Acts; on the conduct of elections in one day and on the Order of Elections; on the merger of the Voters Register with the I.D Card Project; on the liberalisation of the conditions for the registration of Political Parties; on the infamous Anambra 12 and the Senator Wabara debacle. All these skirmishes were at the heart of the struggle to maintain the Commission’s independence from the ruling Party and other major political interests.

It is now history that the 2003 elections were extensively criticised for falling far below standards of acceptability. As someone who was intimately involved in those elections, I can only say how bitterly disappointing it was that this verdict is the one which appears to have been more popularly registered. It is all the more disappointing, when this verdict is weighed against the painstaking and meticulous preparations, and the many battles we had to fight against the encroachment and subversion of our powers and willingness to conduct credible elections. The irony is that even the PDP complained of losing States like Kano, Lagos and Borno through collusion or rigging involving the Commission, and the opposition Parties never acknowledged that they retained, or won new States or seats as a result of the steadfast commitment of INEC to reflect the will of the electorate.

          Before this sounds like a belated apology-and it is not-let me restate the point I am making: even the manner election management is treated by Political Parties, the media with a heavy dose of partisan agenda, N.G.Os and C.S.Os, many of whom are paid to influence specific outcomes, represents an onslaught on the integrity and capacity of INEC to conduct credible elections. The only credible election management body in our history appears to be one which conducted an inconclusive election – Prof Nwosu’s NEC – or one which has not conducted one yet – Jega’s INEC! It sounds terribly cynical, but it is beginning to look as if the only credible elections in Nigeria are the elections we have won.

HOW DEEP IS THE BOTTOM?

          By universal acclaim, the 2007 elections have been the worst. I will contend that they also largely reflected the worst political environment in which to conduct elections:

                               i.            A bruising fight between President Obasanjo and Vice President Atiku Abubakar for the heart and soul of the PDP and the nation’s political levers. This fight formed the character of the elections in many ways; in the litigations; in the manner INEC itself took sides in its preparations for the elections, and in the alliances which it generated;

                            ii.            The total dominance by President Obasanjo of the political terrain in spite of, or quite possibly because of the failure of the third term bid, which allowed him to re-invent himself in the successors he handpicked;

                         iii.            An aggressive, all-out assault on the opposition (the infamous do-or-die approach) intended to expand the scope of control of the PDP;

                          iv.            A palpable loss of moral tone in the leadership of INEC itself, manifested in the rather public pandering to the larger-than-life posture of the PDP, right up to litigations regarding candidature and the printing of ballot papers.

The verdict on the 2007 elections is quite possibly well deserved; certainly if the embarrassing outcomes of litigations on the elections are considered. Just a few weeks ago, a new Governor was sworn-in: three whole years after INEC had returned his opponent! Could these elections be reflections of a political context from which INEC took its cue? It is difficult to rationalise the low quality of the 2007 elections without answering this question in the affirmative, because there really is no other answer. Certainly, of the entire National Commission which conducted the elections of 1999 and 2003, only two were left by 2005. One of them was Professor Maurice Iwu. Over 90% of the Resident Electoral Commissioners were in place from before the 2003 elections to the 2007 elections. INEC’s entire bureaucracy (except the two Secretaries), was in place from 1998 to 2007. I will argue the case here that as in 1998-1999, the 2007 elections also largely reflected the dominance of the leadership.

CAN WE PANIC NOW?

          The 2011 elections will be conducted in a context where the dominant influence of the PDP which substantially provided the character to the 1999, 2003 but more significantly 2007 elections is substantially fragmented. The preparations for the elections have already suffered massive setbacks, and a combination of a badly-prepared election and an intensely-fragmented political elite is the worst nightmare for our developing democratic system. It is tempting to assume that INEC has little to do with the in-fighting within the PDP, but the reality is that it affects it in many important respects. It is no secret that the setbacks and the delays in amending the 2010 Electoral Act are traceable to the manoeuvres within the PDP for some strategic advantages. In whatever manner these monumental quarrels within the PDP are resolved, it will be reasonable to expect that they will affect the organisation and quality of the elections. Let’s just take a brief look at some of the factors which impinge or will impinge on the capacity of INEC to conduct elections in 2011:

       i.            An Electoral Act which is still being part together 6 months to an election;

    ii.            The production of a new Electronic Voters Register in approximately four months – which has not yet commenced;

 iii.            Putting out statutory timelines, supervision and management of Party activities;

  iv.            A political environment which is polarising the nation along potentially dangerous lines and which is likely to feed electoral violence, and a political elite which has never been so fragmented since 1979;

     v.            A President with awesome incumbent powers who is fighting for his political life, and who has shown a capacity to seek political advantages which generate intense hostility;

  vi.            Opposition to the President within his Party which is not averse to adopting its own scare tactics and pandering to the lowest common denominator, including producing a candidate through a quasi-tribal conclave;

vii.            A looming spectre of violence and general insecurity which will be compounded by existing flash points in the Niger Delta and some parts of the North;

viii.            A nation whose appetite for credible elections has been whetted by the appointment of the present leadership of INEC and which has not been prepared to accept the possibility that it may be disappointed.

THE DAY AFTER

          Perhaps the fears being raised by the postures and utterances of the people who are aspiring to lead us; by the failures of the Presidency and the National Assembly to provide a timely and appropriate legal framework for the 2011 elections; by the constant search for opportunistic advantages through legal and other questionable means by aspirants and contestants; by the looming spectre of increased violence around electoral issues; and by very high expectations of Nigerians that the promise of credible elections in 2011, will come to pass. Perhaps;but these fears are real, and they must not be dismissed as unnecessary alarmist. If the political meltdown we are witnessing affects the quality or even the conduct of the 2011 elections, the future for Nigeria is bleak. But it does not have to happen, and it should not happen if:

i.                   Decent Nigerians speak out against the militarization of our democracy, or the appearance being created that aspirants and contestants are about to wage wars against each other, and drag us into them;

ii.                Decent Nigerians demand that the Presidency and the National Assembly concludes the amendments to the Constitution and Electoral Act within the next two weeks;

iii.             Decent Nigerians raise their vigilance and involvement in the electoral process by actually making themselves available for registration and election duties, and joining N.G.Os and C.S.Os to keep an eye on the electoral process;

iv.              Decent Nigerians join active politics, not only to add value to governance, but also to wrest the political initiative from the few who have cornered our politics and imbued it with the character of corruption, violence and indecency.

There is little time to salvage the next elections and make them better than those in 1999, 2003 and 2007. This task will not come from the leadership of the country, but from ordinary Nigerians who should rise up to shield it from monumental fallouts of the political level, and which will find expression in the manner the 2011 elections are managed and administered.   

WARNING ON 2011 ELECTIONS

A retired federal Permanent Secretary, Dr Hakeem Baba-Ahmed, has warned that the absence of an appropriate and adequate legal framework for the 2011 elections represent a red flag and a major threat to the coming polls.

Baba-Ahmed, a former secretary in INEC, gave the warning at the weekend while delivering a lecture titled ‘Red Flags To 2011’ at the 25th Annual Conference of the Federation of Muslim Women’s Association of Nigeria (FOMWAN) in Abuja.

He said the manner in which the executive and the legislature resolve the arguments around the amendments of the Constitution, as well as the formalization of the 2010 Electoral Act as the enabling law of the 2011 elections will largely address the concerns around the time the nation needs to conduct elections.

While expressing doubt over the possibility of conducting credible elections in January 2011, he advised President Goodluck Jonathan and the National Assembly to deploy a strong and transparent political machinery, and urged him to move the elections to April 2011.

He expressed concern over the reported attempt by the legislature to include provisions prescribing the Order of Elections in the 2010 Act in view of the fact that a Supreme Court ruling is against it.

He said determining the order of elections is a management function and INEC should be free to handle the assignment, and account to the political parties and the Nigerian people for its decisions.

While calling on INEC to engage in a critical self-assessment, and a willingness to restructure itself to achieve the required levels of integrity, competence and reliability, he said staff whose loyalty, competence or integrity is questionable have no place in the new INEC.

He called for the involvement of organized groups like FOMWAM and citizens in the electoral process, stating that INEC and politicians alone cannot deliver credible elections.

While voicing misgivings regarding the suitability of NYSC members for registration and election duties, he said the benefits of their educational levels had tended to be eroded by the tendency to disappear with material and equipment, to introduce widespread restiveness into sensitive assignments and to cost much higher than local, available ad hoc staff.

The former Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that the guarantee that state organs including security agencies will not be deployed in favor of certain parties must be secured from the government by all political parties.

WE ARE NOT OUT OF THE WOODS YET

2011 elections: We are not yet out of the woods -Baba Ahmed

Sunday, 10 October 2010 05:00 Ibraheem Musa

In your lecture last August, you listed what you referred to as, red flags, some sort of obstacles that may constrain INEC from conducting credible elections. You said that the time was too short to conduct free and fair elections. Now that INEC has cried out and the National Assembly is willing to grant it more time, will you say that your prophesy has come to pass?
I wouldn’t exactly say that it was a prophesy;  I made some projections on the basis of my experience in election management and two, on the basis of the facts on ground. We had delayed the passing of the electoral Act much longer than it should have been. There were also arguments and otherwise of the conclusiveness of the constitution amendment.
All these were eating into the time that was given to INEC to conduct elections. It is great that we have the people who are now at the helm of affairs and they made decisions but these people are not miracle workers. I had the opportunity when FOMWAN asked me to address the issue of elections and I felt the best thing one could do was to look at the 2011 election against all the odds that were already evident.
And I tried to say that there were a number of problems that were likely to be encountered. That was why I called the lecture Red flags, simply to say that those were flash points that we needed to pay attention to. I wasn’t the only one who raised the issues. Quite a number of people did. May be some of them after my lecture.
I’m glad that we were able to get INEC finally to say that January 2011 was not feasible and I`m happy that the National Assembly and the presidency are moving at some speed to effect the amendment to move the elections beyond January. I think that it was most unfortunate that we found ourselves in this situation.
The time between the appointments of the commission, passing of the electoral act, concluding the amendment of the constitution was too short. That was why in the lecture, I used the word ``stampeding INEC``. It looked like someone somewhere was contriving to give INEC very very little time to conduct the election. When the commission said that the voters register it inherited from Professor Iwu is useless and it was coming up with an entirely new one, the problem was compounded. To create a new electronic voters register is not easy.
The commitment to come up with a new register and with very little time available and the huge array of tasks that INEC needed to do, were basically the issues that I felt represented major problems. And that was why I said, the first red flag has to do with the issue of timing. I made the case that I foresaw that January 2011 was not going to be feasible.

Some people are saying that now that the National Assembly has agreed to grant the time extension, the gerrymandering  and the merry go-round of trying to amend the relevant sections of both the electoral Act and the constitution will also “eat” into the extension  that INEC is asking for. Do you see this as another red flag?
Absolutely. The longer we delay concluding the amendment to move this election from January to either March or April, the more time we will deprive INEC to conduct credible elections.
All the arguments about what should go into the amendment, how long it should take, whether we should just insert a clause that will activate the amendment after the April elections, or whether we should go through the full blown process of going through the National Assembly, then state Assemblies and back to the National Assembly, is taking a lot of time. And even whether we are going to come back to the harrowing debate about whether it still has to go to the president for assent because it is a constitution amendment.
All these are major issues but I think we need to be very careful. I’m alarmed over the things that I’m beginning to hear, that INEC’s request for time extension is now being used by some people to seek additional issues.
One that I have seen in a report, and I’m praying to God that it is not true, is that there are some initiatives to revisit the issue of political appointees as delegates. Another one that I’m hearing is the possibility of rearranging the order of elections, which if you will recall, in my lecture  I said it was wrong. The National Assembly shouldn’t have legislated on it. And as we move on, the more time it takes to conclude this amendment, the more the possibility that someone somewhere will also see an opportunity to achieve some gains.
That will again generate huge arguments. It will delay the process and if we conclude this amendment by the end of October or the middle of November, then I `m sorry to say that the benefits that would have accrued to INEC and the nation  in terms of the leverage that they have gained, will be lost. I hope it is not going to happen and I hope that Nigerians will be very vigilant in watching what is going on. I hope the National Assembly, and the presidency  and all the parties  will see this amendment  purely and simply as INEC has asked, moving the elections from January to April.
Nothing, and I repeat, nothing should be allowed to come on board because the amendments to the constitution and Electoral Sct were completed and no one has any reason now to bring another additional issues. If people do this, it will reinforce the perception that somebody has contrived to deprive INEC of time. Even with this additional time, they are depriving INEC of that time and somebody somewhere is not interested in giving Nigerians credible elections. Yes, it is a danger and it is important that we raise it as an issue now. INEC cannot determine when the National Assembly will conclude the amendment, but I hope the political parties, NGOs, CSOs and everybody recognise the fact that the longer we debate this, more issues will be brought up.

In your lecture, you alluded that President Goodluck Jonathan should not contest election if he wants to conduct credible elections. But you were INEC secretary when a sitting president contested elections. Why do you raise this issue now that it is the turn of Jonathan?
Let me correct you. The case I made was that it was important..at the time that I gave that lecture in the first week of August, it was important that the nation knew whether President Jonathan was going to be a candidate because the electoral process needs to be assured about whether he will be a candidate or not. I think that it is trite to say that President Jonathan has the constitutional right to contest; of course there is no arguing that. It is also a fundamental issue that as a president and a member of his party, there is a huge controversy regarding the morality and legality of his candidature.
When a person of no less stature than the president wants to contest elections, you cannot assume that the electoral and political process will be indifferent to that. Yes, in 2003, I was part of the INEC when President Obasanjo contested a second time, but I can tell you that his fall out with his deputy, was a major issue. Not so much for us as election managers, but for the political system. The problem here is that very often, what happens in the political system tends to have a major impact on the electoral process.
That is why the point I made in early August was to say that it was important at that stage, to know whether Jonathan was contesting or not, because the electoral process needs to be sensitive about this and everybody who is involved needs to know. So, that we can expect from the  president a level playing field. Because there is a difference between being a candidate and being an unbiased umpire.

That was why I raised the issue at that time and since then, a number of things have come forward that have more than vindicated that position. Today, President Jonathan is an aspirant as the constitution gives him the right to be. The controversy over his aspiration is a party issue, but because it is the PDP, it has become a national issue. I have to say that if the report that we are hearing about the initiative to amend the Electoral Act and the constitution to bring back the issue of political appointees as delegates is coming from the president, this is the kind of thing that one was worrying about.

In plain terms, do you think that the country should expect  a free, fair and credible elections in 2011, with the president contesting?
There is no reason why we shouldn’t. If he is willing to respect the oath of his office, if he is willing to comply with the wishes of Nigerians, he should give INEC complete and unfettered freedom, all his actions must be absolutely transparent, he must shield his office from partisan politics. Its a huge challenge but I think it can be done.
I hope that President Jonathan will go down in history as the president who was both president and a candidate and who allowed a free and fair election to take place. But the truth is, there are huge temptations. As we move on, you are likely to see his opponents throwing up alot of issues that compromise him and his office and use them for politicking. Nigerians will exercise their judgement and see whether they are mere political rhetorics or there is some truth about it. The office of the president of Nigeria is a hallowed office; it must never be allowed to be drag into the mud of electioneering.
Because, whether the president himself or his opponent will end up occupying that office. But a president can contest elections and he can do so while allowing the electoral process to operate the way it is.  Right now, I don’t know; the extension of time has extended the electioneering and the rhetoric are going to get more bitter and more heated. A lot of mud will be thrown at the president and the president will do the same. The challenges of elections are going to be more demanding. All these affect the performance and the office of the president. Sometimes, it is not the president himself but his people who will see the opportunity of some short term gains they may try and seize it.
My hope is that they should just allow the amendment that INEC sought to take place. And this is going to test the will power of Mr President and the responsibility of the National Assembly.

So far, the searchlight has been on Professor Jega and his INEC as well as Resident Electoral Commissioners. People have been vouching for their integrity and capability to conduct credible elections. However, most of the staff were the ones who conducted the 2007 disputed elections. People are saying that there is little Jega and his team can do if these staff are the ones going to conduct coming elections. As someone who has been there before, do you think that a complete overhaul of the staff is necessary for credible elections to be conducted as people are advocating?
I have to tell you the truth that I feel very sorry for Professor Jega and a lot of his commissioners. I know quite a few of them. They are absolutely first class Nigerians and I will follow any one of these people anywhere.
Their personal integrity and history is beyond reproach and I know that they are taking this assignment with a high sense of responsibility. I think elections are safe in their hands. However, they may not guarantee free and fair elections.
One of the issues that I raised in my lecture was that INEC should look inwards. Take the issue of the so called Iwu’s register. We produced this register with huge amounts of money and up till now, nobody is asking who is going to pay for it. How did it come to be so bad? Who mutilated it? Who destroyed it? Was it Iwu himself alone? Could it have been done with the complicity of a large number of the present staff in INEC?
Could the few people who have been removed now be the only ones who are responsible? Do we have fifth columnists in INEC? INEC is not involved in full scale deployments, I can understand that. If they had say two years or one and half years, the first thing that they would have done was to look at the staffing but they don’t have the time.
But between the National Commissioners and the Resident Electoral Commissioners, they should have done something as a matter of priority about the staff; their integrity, records and complicity in past elections but I don’t think that they were able to do that. One of the things that is happening now, is that we are going to the next elections with the same people who did the 2007 elections.
Hopefully, if there is nothing the present INEC leadership can do about the staff, it is to put the fear of God into them and demand that the very high level of integrity of the National Commissioners and the Resident Electoral Commissioners can be imparted on the staff. It is a major weakness in the chain of INEC.

May be that is why, in my view, INEC wants to use youth corps members for registeration and even election duties because they are still somewhat untainted by the larger society, just coming out of the ivory tower. Why do you disagree with that?
It is basically out of experience. In my public service life, I have witnessed al ot of exercises like voter registration exercise, national ID card project and lots of exercises involving a large number of people in the field.
On quite a number of occasions, NYSC people were disappointing. Like I said in my lecture, they have caused huge levels of restiveness and many of them walked away with equipment and materials if you delay paying them their allowance by one day. I remember we did a lot of activities in compiling the voters register and some of our experiences with NYSC members were not very pleasant.
I`m very reluctant to criticise young Nigerians when we are celebrating 50 years of independence. The NYSC members were the same students in our universities where we see a lot of vices and they don’t become new people just because they have graduated. The advantages of using them is their levels of literacy and they are relatively untainted and are committed to Nigeria. I think that on the face of it, they are available and can be mobilised easily. They can be traced and tracked.
All these are advantages but my conclusion that we should be careful about the NYSC was drawn from an experience and I have reason to believe that things have changed. I worry about keeping track of the people, how many people will surrender laptops that contain vital information and even the cost of it. You are going to move these people into areas that they are not serving in. I hope that INEC has done enough homework to limit some of these abuses of the past. But I still maintain the position that INEC should endeavour to find other Nigerians, they should challenge people like you and I to go out and do election duties.
It really doesn’t take much. If more and more Nigerians who are disgusted that our electoral process has degenerated, it will be easy to mobilise them. You can mix up with some youth corps members and ask for some guarantees but I`m worried about this unquestioning faith, just because they are NYSC, they should be allowed to undertake very sensitive field exercise.

May be that is why the commission has put some kind of guarantee in the use of corps members, that their certificates will be withheld in the event that they default. Don’t you think that this will keep the corps on leash?
Let me just say that I have no reason to believe that corpers are per se unreliable. If there are ways that you can improve the guarantees that they will do their work, they will not riot because you have delayed payment or somebody suspects that the amount of money that they are giving them is less than what they should have been given, that some people will not use them etc. If you can guarantee those things, I will be very happy to go along with the consensus that NYSC should do the job. I’m sure that if INEC talks with NYSC management, they will find ways to secure the process. I wish there was an option for INEC.

At a recent meeting with leaders of political parties, there was agitation for INEC to conduct all elections in on day. Opposition politicians kicked against staggered elections, arguing that with improved technology, the commission can conduct all elections in one day. As someone who has been in INEC, do you think that the commission has the capacity to conduct all elections in one day?
There is no election since 1999, when huge demands were not made to conduct all the elections in one day. In 2002 and 2003 we had to even go to court to demand that we should be allowed to have elections on different dates. And we won the case. The reason is not far fetched. It is tempting to make the case to conduct elections in one day.
On the face of it, it is a very good idea because everybody is in one place at the same time. And you use the same materials and the same centres for all five elections and you will minimise rigging and hijacking of materials. The problem however is if we had the electronic voter system, it will be feasible. And I think that one of the greatest pities that threw it out. If we had the system in place, it would have been the simplest thing and the most practical things to do because all a voter needed to do is to punch some buttons and in one minute the votes will be registered. I `m very bitter about this.
We made such a good case for the adoption of an electronic voters register; I was involved in the Uwais report and in its processing all the way to the National Assembly. There is no reason why we didn’t adopt the electronic voting system. One of the problems that we are likely to have if we conduct the elections in one day, is this; 500 voters will come out and vote for all the candidates together. The booklet which you will give to a voter to cast his or her vote is going to be like a text book because it will contain all the candidates in that constituency against all the five strands of elections. And yet we complain about insufficient voter education, we record a high number of voided votes yearly and these voided votes reflect very largely, the insufficiency of voter education. Apart from the cumbersome and very difficult ballot book, not ballot paper, that will be involved if all elections are conducted in one day you also have to consider the issue of timing.
How long will it take for one voter to go into the polling booth and cast his vote, with all these huge candidates? It defies the imagination. From an election management perspective, under the circumstances, it just doesn’t make sense to conduct all elections in one day.

You rightly pointed out that in every election, there is a high incidence of voided votes which is a function of poor voter education and illiteracy. Ironically, you also made a case for electronic voting, which is more difficult to handle.
We have passed that stage. Virtually everyone who was involved in considering options in our electoral system has seen how simple the electronic voting system is. It allows 750 million voters to cast their votes. It is popular in India which has less literacy and higher poverty rate than Nigeria yet the conduct of elections using the electronic voters register. Manny countries are now reverting to it. Even Britain which conducted a sham election recently is contemplating using the electronic voters register. It is the solution of Nigeria’s problems, it is just that typically, we have closed our minds to it.
We use a mobile phone which is 1000 times more complicated than the electronic voters register. I suspect that the resistance against the use of the electronic voters register is coming from politicians who are used to a system that they can rig. Because there is no one who has a clear understanding of the benefits of the electronic voters register, will not recommend that it should be adopted.
I remember when electronic voting was demonstrated at the National Assembly, the process was thwarted by all sorts of hitches; the machines jammed, the votes didn’t record in some instances etc. May be that is why people are still apprehensive about it.
We have gone way beyond that. That was two, three, four years ago. Even the one or two sessions of the National Assembly, when they were considering the constitution amendment, they used the electronic voting system. As Nigerians, we need to open our minds, let’s not become slaves of the past, we need to move beyond this system which is wasteful, dangerous and subversive paper-based elections. Do you know what it takes to conduct elections now? You are going to print hundreds of millions of paper; the printing is  anightmare. Up till the moment that I’m talking to you now, there are ballot papers that were printed for the 2007 election still laying in South Africa. I suspected that there are containers that were dumped when I was secretary of INEC, at the Abuja Trade fair complex, containing ballot papers for the 2003 elections.

RED FLAGS TO 2011

We may not have heard the last word on the amendments to the Constitution and final shape of the Electoral Act. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is working towards meeting the very high expectations of Nigerians. The political environment is dotted with events, manoeuvres and scheming, all of which will have profound impact on the preparations for and the conduct of the 2011 elections themselves.

And all these are being challenged by insufficiency of time to resolve, as well as the fear and danger of the failure to actually organize credible elections in 2011. Perhaps the only thing one could say with certainty is that there is no alternative to having a democratically-elected government in place on the 29th of May, 2011.

There is a raging and worrying controversy over what constitutes the correct procedure for constitutional amendments. Threats of litigation abound, and the possibilities that opposing parties may dig-in will erode the precious time there is left to put the matter of the legal framework for the 2011 elections to rest. The amendments to the 2006 Electoral Act, which are tied to the conclusion of the Constitutional amendments themselves, are yet to be signed into an Act, and INEC is already working as if the 2010 Act is its enabling law. INEC and the nation are virtually resigned to having elections in January 2011, yet whether this is the law is uncertain. There is also the near absence of a serious discussion on whether INEC can actually produce an acceptable voters’ register before January, 2011.

Critical timelines are at risk to the extent that these arguments and legal issues are not resolved. As at now, the enabling law for the conduct of the 2011 elections is the Electoral Act 2006, but this does not reflect many of the innovations and amendments that are being proposed in the 2010 Act or in the Constitution. INEC has told the nation that it has virtually no voters’ register, and will compile a new one before the end of November, 2010. New issues with potential to create new controversies, such as the reported attempts to legislate the Order of Elections are being debated. The nation’s appetite for credible elections has been whetted by the appointment of many men and women of integrity and proven competence into INEC, yet there is very little on the ground to demonstrate that it takes a lot more than a group of good people in INEC to deliver credible elections.

The absence of a legal framework for the conduct of the 2011 Elections represents an unacceptable and threatening situation.

There is an urgent need to revisit the amendments which have brought forward the elections to January 2011. In spite of INEC’S commitment to operate and deliver within the timelines which it will have, I have doubts over its ability to undertake a huge array of tasks in addition to preparing for credible elections in January 2011. In the first place, even with all the money it has asked for being made available to it within the time requested, the mechanics of procuring and deploying equipment and material, training of personnel, conduct of field exercises, processing of data and ultimately producing a new and reliable voters register complete with biometrics containing 70 million voters is near-impossible task, even with the best efforts of INEC. The Commission needs a lot more time, say until February 2011 to produce a brand new Voters Register.

Whose interests will be served by a situation in which INEC is stampeded into an election that is poorly-planned and conducted? What will the nation gain by having elections in January 2011, with all the booby traps, even if they are unintended? Is INEC being asked to undertake an impossible task, for which the nation will pay dearly?

The nation will lose nothing if the leadership revisits the provision that elections must hold in January 2011. The rationale for holding elections in January, and allowing all litigations to be concluded before May 29th which was made by the Electoral Reform Committee (E.R.C) was well founded, but we have lost too much time to make it useful at this stage.

Another contentious issue is the reported attempt by the legislature to include provisions prescribing the Order of Elections in the 2010 Act. We need to be clear about this issue: not only is there a Supreme Court ruling against this when it was earlier attempted, the manner in which it is being introduced now into the Bill almost as an afterthought cannot be removed from the context of current manoeuvres over particular candidates and the debates over securing a level playing field. The attempt to legislate the Order of Elections is likely to be defeated in the end.  But there should be political will on the part of the president and leadership of the legislature to resolve this matter quickly.

In terms of the need to address other critical issues that are central to organizing credible elections in 2011, one of the most important is INEC’s commitment to a critical self-assessment, and a willingness to restructure itself to achieve the required levels of integrity, competence and reliability. We need to know what happened to the mutilated register of voters, how it was mutilated, who did it, and at what cost to the nation. The leadership of INEC needs to be convinced that it has no fifth columnists within it.

Another round of elections which will be roundly condemned as organized fraud against the Nigerian people will fatally injure our democratic process.

Excerpts of remarks by Dr Baba-Ahmed, a former INEC scribe, at 25th annual conference of Federation of Muslim Women’s Association of Nigeria (FOMWAN) in Abuja last week.