The announcement of additional 30,027 polling units (PUs) by the Independent National Electoral Commission has become the most vexatious controversy since it announced the timetable for the 2015 polls. The proposal from INEC to establish the additional PUs is purportedly to decongest existing units in the bid to ensure that not more than 500 voters will be allocated to a polling unit, to facilitate logistics and administration of voting in the 2015 elections.
Of the 30,000 new polling units, 21,615 were allocated in northern Nigeria, while 8,412 were allocated to the states in the south. Individuals and organisations from the south have interpreted this apparently disproportional distribution of the new polling units under the proposed arrangement as a ploy to foist northern dominance on the country. The Election Integrity Network interpreted the decision as the result of sectional domination of the decision-making body of INEC. The South-East think- tank singled out Nuhu Yakubu, Chairman, Operations Committee of INEC, as the one behind the decision, arguing that he had demonstrated such sectional commitment and bias in the past. The Southern Peoples Assembly called for the resignation of the Chairman of INEC, Attahiru Jega, over the lopsided allocation of the additional polling units. The pan-Yoruba socio-political group, Afenifere, also rejected the creation of additional units and passed “a vote of no confidence” on Jega, over his ability to conduct a free and fair election come 2015.
ADVERTISEMENT
After several fumbling responses by several staff of INEC, Jega held a press conference where he attempted to clarify the issue. First, he noted that the exercise was done to decongest over-crowded PUs and dispersing voters as evenly as possible among all the PUs. This is to be achieved by splitting large PUs such that they have an average of 500 registered voters. Thus, the creation of additional PUs was to cater for the splitting of large polling units as well as new settlements not serviced by any of the existing PUs. In doing this, the exercise also sought to locate PUs more effectively within commuting distances of voters, given that movement is usually restricted on election day. Furthermore, the exercise was done to relocate the PUs from ‘in-front of’ private houses, and such other unsuitable places, to public buildings or where this is not possible, to public open spaces where tents can be provided. The exercise also sought to locate the PUs inside classrooms or such other suitable enclosures, in line with international best practices.
Jega further explained that the distribution of the additional PUs was based on need, with the parameters listed above. He demonstrated that the determination of the overall number of 150,000 PUs and its distribution across the states was based on the figure of 70,383,427 registered voters and estimated new voters after verifying with the use of Automated Fingerprint Identification Software (AFIS), which eliminated cases of multiple registrations. He explained further that INEC was mindful of the political nature of the exercise, hence it took the decision to ensure that: (i) no state lost any polling unit from its stock of existing PUs, no matter the statistical outlook when the voter population is disaggregated into units of 500 persons; and that (ii) each state got some additional polling units from 15 per cent of the total being newly created on the basis of ‘equality principle’ regardless of the number of PUs already existing in each state in comparison to the voter population.
The latest detailed explanation by INEC of the basis of the creation of additional polling units is welcome given the heated controversy that the initial announcement had generated. Yet, it is our opinion that INEC must take responsibility for the controversy. Given the political character of the exercise, INEC should have carried stakeholders and the Nigerian public along in carrying out the exercise. Indeed, the figures on the distribution of the new PUs should not have been announced without the explanations that Jega has just provided. This amounts to a transparency and accountability deficit that INEC has now corrected. We hope that INEC now appreciates the value of transparency and public education in all its activities. It needs to provide such educative explanations in public campaigns for all its activities, especially the on-going distribution of permanent voter cards (PVCs).
We commend all the organisations and individuals that rose to challenge INEC on the issue for their alertness. They have demonstrated consciousness of the dictum that says “eternal vigilance is the price of democracy and freedom.” They have forced INEC to provide the necessary explanations. They should ensure that what is written down on paper is implemented for the 2015 elections. We also hope that they will extend this level of alertness in challenging the excesses of government in other areas, especially to support anti-corruption and accountability of elected officials to the electorate.
