Our performance didn’t meet our expectations
As you are no doubt aware, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) conducted the Anambra governorship election. In preparing for that election, INEC was determined to make it the best election that we conducted so far. And we prepared for that election adequately more than we have done in preparing for previous elections.
The elections were conducted. There were many matters arising in the conduct of the election, and there is no doubt that INEC’s operation performance in that election has not met the expectations of Nigerians to be the best election ever conducted by INEC. We regret shattering the expectations of Nigerians. But we did our best under very difficult circumstance to have prepared credible elections.
Nigerians are also no doubt aware that the Returning Officer, when announcing the result for that election declared it inconclusive and mentioned the need to do the supplementary elections. Following the conduct of that election, we received complaints from candidates, from political parties and many other Nigerians raising issues with the conduct of the election. Some called for outright cancellation of the election, making arguments as to why the election must be cancelled.
The elections were conducted. There were many matters arising in the conduct of the election, and there is no doubt that INEC’s operation performance in that election has not met the expectations of Nigerians to be the best election ever conducted by INEC. We regret shattering the expectations of Nigerians. But we did our best under very difficult circumstance to have prepared credible elections.
Nigerians are also no doubt aware that the Returning Officer, when announcing the result for that election declared it inconclusive and mentioned the need to do the supplementary elections. Following the conduct of that election, we received complaints from candidates, from political parties and many other Nigerians raising issues with the conduct of the election. Some called for outright cancellation of the election, making arguments as to why the election must be cancelled.
Why INEC can’t cancel the election
We had a meeting with all the field, the senior level field officers who participated in that election. We reviewed the conduct of that election; we received information about what was done right, lapses about the conduct of the election and the commission met today (on Friday) and took the following decisions with regards to the next line of action.
We regret that in spite of our intention, the Anambra election has not turned out to be the best election that the commission has conducted so far. We regret the challenges that we faced in the conduct for that election, but in our assessment there is no other decision that we, as the commission, can take other than the position of the Returning Officer to conduct a supplementary election in those areas where the results were cancelled before the final returning were made.
We examined all the accusation and the allegations that were made and we came to the conclusion that in spite of minor challenges, unfortunate challenges in the field, there is no substantial evidence to support the outright cancellation of the process. We believed that although the Anambra election was not the best election as we wished, there was substantial compliance with the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) and that a substantial majority of the allegations that have been made cannot be substantiated. Therefore, we have decided that the supplementary election will hold in Anambra State on Saturday November 30th, 2013.
There is no doubt that there was the challenge of late commencement of election; there was no doubt that this late commencement in many polling units was accounted by delay from election officials, there was no doubt that some polling units materials arrived late, but where it became necessary to adjust the time of the election and time for accreditation, we have done so and elections have taken place peacefully and successfully.
We had a meeting with all the field, the senior level field officers who participated in that election. We reviewed the conduct of that election; we received information about what was done right, lapses about the conduct of the election and the commission met today (on Friday) and took the following decisions with regards to the next line of action.
We regret that in spite of our intention, the Anambra election has not turned out to be the best election that the commission has conducted so far. We regret the challenges that we faced in the conduct for that election, but in our assessment there is no other decision that we, as the commission, can take other than the position of the Returning Officer to conduct a supplementary election in those areas where the results were cancelled before the final returning were made.
We examined all the accusation and the allegations that were made and we came to the conclusion that in spite of minor challenges, unfortunate challenges in the field, there is no substantial evidence to support the outright cancellation of the process. We believed that although the Anambra election was not the best election as we wished, there was substantial compliance with the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) and that a substantial majority of the allegations that have been made cannot be substantiated. Therefore, we have decided that the supplementary election will hold in Anambra State on Saturday November 30th, 2013.
There is no doubt that there was the challenge of late commencement of election; there was no doubt that this late commencement in many polling units was accounted by delay from election officials, there was no doubt that some polling units materials arrived late, but where it became necessary to adjust the time of the election and time for accreditation, we have done so and elections have taken place peacefully and successfully.
Why some names were missing in voters register
There were a lot of allegations by either party or candidate with regards to the voters register. I want to say that we have investigated and the major allegation being made, which was by the register that INEC gave to political parties 30 days before the election, was different from the register that we gave on the day of the stakeholder meeting a few days to the election was different. This is not correct.
We have reviewed the register and we are satisfied by this review that the register we gave 30 days before the election and the register we gave in the stakeholders meeting was the same and the only difference was the age, which we explained to the stakeholders and none of the stakeholders complained about. They understood our explanation and they were satisfied with it, and there was no challenge to that. So, to now come and start talking about challenges with the register and particularly to accuse INEC about changing the register, frankly is not being fair to INEC.
And at this point, anybody or any party has evidence of discrepancy or variance in the two registers that we have given them, then of course they should come out and prove it. As far as we are concerned, the only difference to the two registers was the correction of the age and this was mentioned to the stakeholders and they accepted it and therefore the register we conducted election with, except the age, was the register that was given to the stakeholders 30 days before the election.
There were a lot of allegations by either party or candidate with regards to the voters register. I want to say that we have investigated and the major allegation being made, which was by the register that INEC gave to political parties 30 days before the election, was different from the register that we gave on the day of the stakeholder meeting a few days to the election was different. This is not correct.
We have reviewed the register and we are satisfied by this review that the register we gave 30 days before the election and the register we gave in the stakeholders meeting was the same and the only difference was the age, which we explained to the stakeholders and none of the stakeholders complained about. They understood our explanation and they were satisfied with it, and there was no challenge to that. So, to now come and start talking about challenges with the register and particularly to accuse INEC about changing the register, frankly is not being fair to INEC.
And at this point, anybody or any party has evidence of discrepancy or variance in the two registers that we have given them, then of course they should come out and prove it. As far as we are concerned, the only difference to the two registers was the correction of the age and this was mentioned to the stakeholders and they accepted it and therefore the register we conducted election with, except the age, was the register that was given to the stakeholders 30 days before the election.
INEC didn’t disenfranchise anyone
There were also allegations of disenfranchisement. This is regrettable, given the energy and attention that INEC had deployed in the cleaning up of the register and in trying to make the register much more credible, than the register which we conducted the 2011 elections. I want to remind us that before the Anambra elections, the commission met with the chairmen of all the registered political parties and their secretaries, who came along with the chairman of Anambra State of the branches of their parties.
We briefed them adequately about the improvements we had made to the register; we told them how the number of total registered voters came down from about 1.8 to about 1.7 million because we had done our best to eliminate all multiple registrations. We also told them about the efforts we were making before the 2015 general elections to make sure that nationwide addendum register was eliminated in the conduct of the election. And we briefed them about the efforts we were making to make sure that when the Anambra election came, there would be no use of the addendum register.
We briefed them about how, in Anambra state before the conduct of the election, continuous voter registration, with the main purpose of updating the register by allowing those who have reach 18 years since the conduct of the last registration, and we also informed them how we were going to use the continuous voter registration to address the issue of addendum register.
For example, we briefed about how anybody who is not on the electronic register, and who voted during the 2011 elections, with their names on the addendum register, should use the opportunity of the continuous voter registration to have their names captured and put in the electronic register.
Before we did the continuous voter registration in Anambra State, we did massive campaign, we even displayed the electronic register that was used in 2011 election, so that people could see if their names were not in that register could use the voter registration to have their names and details captured and put in the register.
So I can say that from our own assessment from this allegation of disenfranchisement, a substantial majority, if not those that were said to have gone to the polling unit with their voters card and did not find their names on the register, in all likelihood, even if not all of them, must have either been people who have done multiple registrations or were people who did not take advantage of the continuous voter registration to have their names in the electronic register.
The challenge is for political parties to marshal their evidences or to prove that there were actually people who have their names on the electronic register, which is people outside of the list of those who have done multiple registration, or on the addendum register, who were not initially a priori on the voters register.
No evidence has been provided to us, as I speak to you by any of the political parties and therefore the question or the issue of the disenfranchisement cannot be used to question or to cancel the election as said by the political parties.
There were complaints in some polling units about some candidates who have gone to the polling units or some notable Nigerians who have gone to the polling unit and with their voters card and claimed to have been disenfranchised and were not allowed to vote.
And I need to clarify on this. The electoral Act is very clear and our guideline is very clear that if you present yourself at a polling unit, you must first of all present your card, and your name will be checked in the register.
If your name is not on the register, you will not be allowed to vote. Our electoral officials were trained on this and they clearly complied with the training manuals and legal provisions by ensuring that only people whose names are found on the register are allowed to vote.
A case of one of the candidates who said his name was not on the voters register, we have done some checking, and our investigation has shown that he was on manual register, not on the electronic register. And in all likelihood, that candidate, since we used electronic register in the election, that candidate did not utilised the continuous voters registration opportunity so as to be on the electronic register.
There were also allegations of disenfranchisement. This is regrettable, given the energy and attention that INEC had deployed in the cleaning up of the register and in trying to make the register much more credible, than the register which we conducted the 2011 elections. I want to remind us that before the Anambra elections, the commission met with the chairmen of all the registered political parties and their secretaries, who came along with the chairman of Anambra State of the branches of their parties.
We briefed them adequately about the improvements we had made to the register; we told them how the number of total registered voters came down from about 1.8 to about 1.7 million because we had done our best to eliminate all multiple registrations. We also told them about the efforts we were making before the 2015 general elections to make sure that nationwide addendum register was eliminated in the conduct of the election. And we briefed them about the efforts we were making to make sure that when the Anambra election came, there would be no use of the addendum register.
We briefed them about how, in Anambra state before the conduct of the election, continuous voter registration, with the main purpose of updating the register by allowing those who have reach 18 years since the conduct of the last registration, and we also informed them how we were going to use the continuous voter registration to address the issue of addendum register.
For example, we briefed about how anybody who is not on the electronic register, and who voted during the 2011 elections, with their names on the addendum register, should use the opportunity of the continuous voter registration to have their names captured and put in the electronic register.
Before we did the continuous voter registration in Anambra State, we did massive campaign, we even displayed the electronic register that was used in 2011 election, so that people could see if their names were not in that register could use the voter registration to have their names and details captured and put in the register.
So I can say that from our own assessment from this allegation of disenfranchisement, a substantial majority, if not those that were said to have gone to the polling unit with their voters card and did not find their names on the register, in all likelihood, even if not all of them, must have either been people who have done multiple registrations or were people who did not take advantage of the continuous voter registration to have their names in the electronic register.
The challenge is for political parties to marshal their evidences or to prove that there were actually people who have their names on the electronic register, which is people outside of the list of those who have done multiple registration, or on the addendum register, who were not initially a priori on the voters register.
No evidence has been provided to us, as I speak to you by any of the political parties and therefore the question or the issue of the disenfranchisement cannot be used to question or to cancel the election as said by the political parties.
There were complaints in some polling units about some candidates who have gone to the polling units or some notable Nigerians who have gone to the polling unit and with their voters card and claimed to have been disenfranchised and were not allowed to vote.
And I need to clarify on this. The electoral Act is very clear and our guideline is very clear that if you present yourself at a polling unit, you must first of all present your card, and your name will be checked in the register.
If your name is not on the register, you will not be allowed to vote. Our electoral officials were trained on this and they clearly complied with the training manuals and legal provisions by ensuring that only people whose names are found on the register are allowed to vote.
A case of one of the candidates who said his name was not on the voters register, we have done some checking, and our investigation has shown that he was on manual register, not on the electronic register. And in all likelihood, that candidate, since we used electronic register in the election, that candidate did not utilised the continuous voters registration opportunity so as to be on the electronic register.
Question about APC petition to INEC
With regards to the claims by APC, yes we have received their claims yesterday and I have gone through it. Almost all the complaints were repetition of the allegations made by the APC candidate, which we have replied. So there is nothing new in it.
With regards to the claims by APC, yes we have received their claims yesterday and I have gone through it. Almost all the complaints were repetition of the allegations made by the APC candidate, which we have replied. So there is nothing new in it.
No comments:
Post a Comment