As suddenly as it announced the decision to create additional polling units in all parts of the country, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has opted to suspend the decision. The commission, while not ruling out revisiting and giving effect to the matter, said the units would be warehoused until the next general elections would have been conducted.
The very controversial creation of the units provoked national outcry. While some Nigerians were suspicious of the motive behind the decision, others kicked over alleged lopsidedness of the distribution of the units. The loudest protest came from the South East that got only about 1,167 units to the 1,200 allocated to the sparsely populated Federal Capital Territory (FCT). The North West was allocated almost 7,906 units while 8,414 were allotted to the three zones of the South.
The North, including the FCT got 20,715 new polling units. The commission explained that it took the action to make units more manageable in the forthcoming elections; claiming also that apart from the number on roll, distance played a major factor in distributing the new units. But, disbelieving voters in the South have argued that the distribution was designed to favour a region and reinforced a supposedly false assumption that the North is more populous than the South, arguing that Nigeria is the only country where the savannah region is deemed more populous than the rain forest region.
Beyond claiming that the creation of the units was purely based on scientific parameters, the electoral commission has failed to satisfactorily respond to the queries about the distribution. Officials responsible for interfacing with the public on INEC’s activities were sorry sights when put through grilling questions on that matter by journalists, thus suggesting that they were either as ignorant of the underlying rationale or as unconvinced as the general public.
News filtering out of the commission and published by the media were not helpful either. There were reports that its internal decision-making mechanism had become defective, fractured along North-South lines. This is bad news for a country that has desperately looked forward to the conduct of credible general elections that meet up international standards.
We call on the commission to quickly put its house in order if it is to engender the confidence of all Nigerians. The idea of announcing such a major decision and then reversing it based on public outcry is an indication that INEC lacked conviction and was not sufficiently rigorous in considering the pros and cons of the matter. The commission, headed by a professor of political science and comprising experienced public servants ought to have subjected the matter to extensive debate before the final decision was taken and announced.
The commission and other sensitive public bodies also need to incorporate consultation with critical stakeholders into the processing of such national issues. Bowing to public pressure after running into a storm is the consequence of putting the cart before the horse. In a democracy, it is trite that the will of the people is supreme, and in electoral matters, the national interest should drown all others.
How INEC would upturn the suspicion generated by the poorly handled exercise remains to be seen. The commission has a duty to assist in pulling down strongholds that have held down Nigeria over the years. It has a responsibility to help in dissolving age-long distrusts, rivalries and unhealthy competitions that have largely accounted for the disharmony in the country’s public life. In the run-up to the next general elections, the commission has a duty to allay fears that it has been ‘captured’ to pursue narrow rather than the general interest.
