Politicians, not INEC, should carry the can

Who should be blamed for inconclusive governorship elections –  the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) or desperate politicians perpetrating unruly behaviours?

An election is a collective enterprise involving various stakeholders, particularly the umpire, security agencies and politicians. The failure of any of these stakeholders to abide by the rules of the game always spells doom for the process.

This is the case in five states where the electoral agency was clearly undermined by the political class. The implication is that in Bauchi, Sokoto, Plateau, Benue and Adamawa and Kano states, the exercise is not complete. INEC has to prepare for supplementary elections as required by the law.

In Bauchi, the Returning Officer, Dominica Anosike, was taken aback when thugs invaded the collation centre in Tafawa Balewa local government, carting away the result sheets.

It was the same scenario in Nassarawa Local Government Area of Kano State where the collation was disrupted by thugs, resulting into a blame trade between All Progressives Congress (APC) and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

In Sokoto State, results of 22 polling units were cancelled. Tempers rose, following the cancellation. But, INEC stood its ground.

Guns boomed at the collation centre in Nassarawa Local Government in Kano in Kano where the exercise was disrupted by thugs.

In Rivers State, protesters invaded the streets, alleging plans by the electoral body to tilt the pendulum of victory in the direction of a party. There are fears that the protest may degenerate into violence, unless security agents avert the looming danger.

Generally, the polls were free and fair in the affected states. INEC tried to justify the confidence reposed in it. There was no case of compromise on the part of polling officers. Card readers were not faulty. Electoral officers did not report late for work. Ballot papers were surplus. INEC officials were not partial.

But, according to monitors, trouble started at the collation centres where widespread disruptions were recorded. Curiously, security agents failed to maintain law and order. Due to hiccups in some polling units, results were cancelled. However, the cancellation created an upset. In some instances, the cancelled votes were more than the margin between the votes garnered by the two leading candidates.

The Electoral Act 2010 empowers the commission to cancel an election on the basis of vote disruption and violation of laid down rules, particularly multiple voting, disparity between votes cast and number of registered voters as well as violence.

It is an additional burden for INEC. Within 21 days, the supplementary polls have to be held. But, the period of anxiety for candidates and their parties is also extended.

If the collation of the supplementary polls are threatened by disruption, there is a way out. The onus is on INEC to critically look at the votes cast and ascertain whether the cancelled election in some units will significantly affect the totality of votes.

The supplementary elections may generate tension. Will the collation be successful?

The lesson of the exercise is that is collation is porous in some locations. To checkmate the thugs who disrupt the process, security agents must be up and doing. The baseline is the prosecution of culprits arrested in connection with the disruptions. This will deter others in the future.