Much ado about 2019 inconclusive elections

Finally, the Independent National Electoral Commission concluded the 2019 general elections last Saturday, March 9, 2019  with the governorship elections held  in 29 states, state assembly polls in 991 constituencies, six Federal Capital Territory Area Council chairmanship positions and  as well as 62 Councilors seats. Though the elections were not without flaws, they were however successful, credible, largely peaceful and reflected the wish of a majority of the voters and contestants. Indeed, the elections were held in substantial compliance with the electoral laws.

On the flip side, the elections recorded significant incidents of violence across some states, actions which necessitated cancellations of some of the results. According to the INEC chairman, Prof. Mahmood Yakubu, while addressing the Inter Agency Consultative Committee on Election Security last Thursday, March 7, 2019, “The commission is concerned that many of our materials, including ballot boxes, voting cubicles, voter registers and Smart Card Readers were lost to acts of hooliganism and thuggery in the elections held two weeks ago. Most worrisome is the attack on electoral officials. Some of our staff were abducted and taken hostage in an attempt to disrupt elections or influence the outcome. In fact, some of the supplementary elections were caused by such acts of thuggery.”

One of the sore points of the just conducted elections was the high number of inconclusive elections it recorded. From the February 23 national elections, INEC had to declare seven Senatorial Districts and 24 federal constituency elections inconclusive. This cut across 14 states. Arising from last Saturday’s state and Area Council elections, six governorship elections and three Area Council chairmanship elections were also declared inconclusive. The inconclusive governorship elections were those of Adamawa, Kano, Bauchi, Sokoto, Benue and Plateau states.

Just like it happened when INEC declared the Osun State governorship election of September 22, 2018 inconclusive, there has been a lot of uproar about the motive of the electoral management body to declare the six governorship elections inconclusive. The conspiracy theorists opine that it was targeted at the opposition Peoples Democratic Party since the party’s candidates were in the lead in five out of the six states where the governorship elections could not be concluded on the first ballot.

I dare say that the elections were declared inconclusive in order to enhance the integrity and the credibility of our elections. The rules are very clear about conditions precedent to declaring a poll inconclusive.  Let us take a look at those conditions. According to Clause 47 of the INEC Regulations and Guidelines for 2019 General Elections,

“The following responses and procedures shall be used in managing the issues identified in this Clause during elections and collation of results, particularly in determining where supplementary elections may hold in line with the ‘Margin of Lead Principle’ as in Schedule 1:

(a) Where the Commission is unable to deploy to Polling Units as a result of logistical challenges, a date for supplementary election shall be announced.

(b) Where there is wilful obstruction or resistance to deployment/distribution of election materials, enter zero votes for the affected polling units and proceed.

(c) Where there is voter resistance to the use of the SCR, enter zero votes for the affected Polling Units and proceed.

(d) Where the use of the SCR is discontinued midway into the elections due to sustained malfunction and no replacement is available before 2pm, a date for supplementary election shall be announced.

(e) Where the commission determines that violent disruptions occurred at a substantial number of Polling Units before announcement of result, a fresh date for election in the affected Polling Units shall be announced by the commission.

(f) Where a violent disruption occurs after announcement of results and ballot papers and result sheets are destroyed, regenerate the affected results from duplicate copies, fill new replacement result sheets with the approval of the Resident Electoral Commissioner and proceed with collation of result.

(g) Where result sheets are snatched or destroyed before they arrive at collation centres, regenerate the affected results from duplicate copies, fill new replacement result sheets with the approval of the Resident Electoral Commissioner and proceed with collation of result.

(h) Where balloting materials are still available or remaining after disruption at any stage of the election, proceed with available materials and conclude that stage of the election. However, where   materials are inadequate, a new date will be announced by the Commission to conclude the stage.

(i) Where there are issues with results of a Voting Point (VP) such as over voting, treat the votes from the affected VP as rejected votes and proceed with the valid votes from other VPs of the Polling Unit.”

To summarise the above quoted Clause 47 of the INEC’s Regulations and Guidelines for the 2019 elections, wherever there is over-voting, violence, non-use of Smart Card Readers, the results of those Polling Units will be cancelled. According  to Clause 33 ( e ) of the INEC Regulations and Guidelines for 2019 General Elections, “Where the margin of lead between the two leading candidates in an election is NOT in excess of the total number of voters registered in Polling Units where elections are not held or voided in line with sections 26 and 53 of the Electoral Act, the returning officer shall decline to make a return until polls have taken place in the affected Polling Units and the results collated into the relevant forms for Declaration and Return. This is the Margin of Lead Principle and shall apply wherever necessary in making returns of all elections to which these Regulations and Guidelines apply”.

For those criticising INEC for declaring those elections inconclusive, would they have preferred that the commission rewarded bad behaviour of politicians? I mean, should a party and its contestants get away with orchestrating violence in the stronghold of opposition candidates in order to reduce their margin of lead knowing full well that elections in such Polling Units will be cancelled? In my own estimation, the supplementary polls are to give all voters an opportunity of exercising their franchise and ensure that whoever is declared a winner of an electoral contest actually won fair and square.

This is not the first time INEC will declare elections inconclusive.  It did in the following governorship elections: In Ekiti State in 2007; Imo State in 2011 and 2015; Abia, Taraba, Kogi and Bayelsa states in 2015. If you must blame the hawk for wickedness, first blame the mother hen for exposing her children to danger. Before we blame INEC for exercising its power to correct an anomaly, let’s first blame the desperate politicians who exhibited intolerable actions of fomenting trouble and trying to short-circuit the electoral process.

My advice is that our electoral law should be amended to disqualify any political party and or candidate who engineers electoral violence from contesting in such an election. If the election has been concluded and such merchants of violence had been sworn into office, they should be made to lose their exalted seats. In addition, INEC should stop using the total number of registered voters as a basis for declaring election inconclusive. Rather, the commission should use the total number of those who have collected their Permanent Voter Card before those elections.  In the immediate period, INEC will do well to publish the total number of voters in the areas where it will be conducting supplementary elections in order to conclude the elections.

 In addition, accredited observers and the media should monitor and cover the supplementary elections in order to enhance their credibility.