ANAMBRA ELECTION: OUR STORY, BY INEC

(Being text of an address by the Chairman, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Professor Attahiru Jega, OFR, at a Press Conference on Friday, November 22, 2013)
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) conducted the Anambra State gubernatorial election on November 16, 2013. In preparing for the election, INEC was determined to make it the best election we have conducted so far, and we prepared for that election adequately – in terms of operational preparations – more than we have done in preparing for previous elections.
There were, however, many matters arising from the conduct of that election.  And there is no doubt that INEC’s operational performance in that election has not met with the expectation of Nigerians of it being the best election ever conducted by the Commission. We regret failing the expectation of Nigerians, but we did our best under very difficult circumstances to have a free, fair and credible election. Nigerians are also no doubt aware that the Returning Officer, when announcing the results from that election, declared it inconclusive and mentioned the need to do a supplementary election in order to conclude the compilation of results and make a final return.
Basis for Supplementary Election
We have since received complaints from candidates, political parties and many other Nigerians raising issues with the conduct of the governorship election. Some have made arguments for outright cancellation of the election. But we in INEC have held a meeting with all the field officers – senior management level field officials who participated in that election. We reviewed the conduct of the election. We received information about what was done right and where there were lapses in the conduct of the election. And the Commission met today (Nov. 22, 2013) and took a decision with regard to the next line of action.
We regret that in spite of our intention, the Anambra election did not turn out to be the best election that the Commission has conducted so far. We regret the challenges we faced in the conduct of this election. But in our assessment, there is no decision we as a Commission can take or respect other than the declaration by the Returning Officer that we should conduct a supplementary election in those areas where results were cancelled before a final return is made.
We have examined all the accusations and allegations that have been 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 outright cancellation of the process. We believe that although the Anambra election was not the best election as we had hoped, there was substantial compliance with the Electoral Act 2010, as Amended, in the conduct of the election; and that a substantial majority of complaints that have been laid cannot be substantiated. Therefore, we have decided that the supplementary election will hold in Anambra State on Saturday, November   30^th, 2013.
 Issues from November 16 Election
There is no doubt that there was late commencement of the November 16 election in some polling units, and there is no doubt that this late commencement resulted from delay in the deployment of election officials. But where personnel and materials arrived late and it became necessary to adjust the time of commencement and closing of accreditation as well as voting, we did so and elections took place peacefully and successfully.
There were many allegations either by parties or candidates with regard to the Register of Voters. I want to say that we have investigated these allegations. Regarding the major allegation that has been made, which is that the register INEC gave political parties 30 days before the election was different from the register we gave on the day of the Stakeholders’ Meeting three days to the election: this is not correct.
We have reviewed the register and we are satisfied that the register we gave 30 days before the election, and the register we gave out during the Stakeholders’ Meeting are the same. The only difference is the age (of registrants), which we explained to the stakeholders and which all the stakeholders there did not complain about. They understood our explanation, they were satisfied with it and there was no challenge at all. So, to now talk about challenges with the register and particularly to accuse INEC of giving a different register, frankly, is not being fair to INEC. If anybody or any political party has the evidence of discrepancy or variance in the two registers that we have given them, they should come out and prove it.  As far as we are concerned, the only difference between the two registers was the correction of the age; and this was discussed at the stakeholders’ meeting and they accepted it. Therefore, the Register of Voters we conducted the election with was the same register in all material particular, except for the correction in age on the one that was given to the parties 30 days before the election.
There were also many allegations of disenfranchisement. This is regrettable given the energy and attention that INEC has deployed in the cleaning up of the register, and in trying to make the register much more credible than the register with which we conducted the 2011 elections. I want to remind us that before the Anambra election, the Commission met with Chairmen and Secretaries of political parties. All registered political parties came along with Chairmen and Secretaries of Anambra State branch of their parties. We briefed them adequately about the improvement we have made to the register. We told them how the number of registered voters in Anambra State had come down from about 1.8 million to about 1.7 million, because we did our best to eliminate all multiple registrations. We also told them about the effort we are making before the 2015 General Elections to ensure that, nationwide, “addendum register” is eliminated in the conduct of elections. And we briefed them about the effort we are making to ensure that when the Anambra State governorship election was conducted, there would be no use of the addendum register.
We briefed them about how in Anambra State before the governorship election, we were going to do continuous voter registration, with the main purpose of updating the register by allowing those who had become 18 years since the last registration to be put on the register. And we also informed them how we were going to use the continuous voters registration exercise to address the problem of addendum register. For example, we briefed them about how anybody who is not on the electronic register and who, therefore, voted during the 2011 Elections with their names in the addendum register should use the opportunity of the continuous voter registration to have their names captured and put on the electronic register. Before we did the continuous voter registration, we undertook massive publicity in Anambra State. We even displayed printed copies of the electronic register that was used in the 2011 Elections so that people could see if their names were not on that register and, if not, they could use the opportunity of the continuous voter registration to have their names and details captured and put on the register.
From our own assessment of these allegations of disenfranchisement,  a substantial majority if not all of those that were said to have gone to polling units with their voter cards and  did not find their names on the register – in all likelihood, a substantial or overwhelming majority of them, if not all of them – must be either people who have done multiple registration, or were people who did not take  advantage of the continuous voter registration to have their names placed on the electronic register.
The challenge is for political parties to provide evidence that there were actually people who were deliberately excluded from the register – that is, people outside of the list of those who had done multiple registration and those who are on the addendum register. These were people who were a priori not on the electronic register. No evidence of this has been provided to us by any of the political parties. Therefore, the allegations of disenfranchisement cannot be used as sufficient reason to cancel the entire election.
There were complaints about a candidate or some other notable Nigerians who had gone to the polling units and had their voter cards, but they claimed to have been disenfranchised and were not allowed to vote. I need to explain this.
The Electoral Act is very clear, and our guidelines are also very clear, that if you present yourself as a voter in a polling unit, you must first of all present your voter card; and then your name will be checked in the register. If your name is not on the register, you will not be allowed to vote. Our officials were trained in this, and they were clearly complying with the training manual and the legal provisions by ensuring that only those people whose names were found on the register were allowed to vote. We have done some checking, and I can tell you that in all likelihood – some we have, indeed, established –  any person who went to a polling unit and did not find his/her name on the electronic register is very likely to have either done multiple registration, or did not take advantage of the continuous voters’ registration to have their details captured and placed on the electronic register.
I can speak more categorically about the candidate who said he went to the polling unit and was not allowed to vote, whereas he voted in 2011. Our investigation showed that this person was on the manual register, but not on the electronic register. Since 2011, it was the manual register that was used to compile the addendum register; and there is evidence of ticking on that manual register. In all likelihood, it was with reference to the manual register that he, and perhaps many others, were allowed to vote in April 2011. But we were not using the addendum register in the governorship election that took place; we were using only the electronic register. In all likelihood, that candidate and many others that were mentioned did not utilize the opportunity of the continuous voter registration to have their details captured and to be placed on the electronic register. We did our best: we publicized what people could do and, if people did not use the opportunity, it is regrettable.  This is the explanation of what happened in that particular case.
Lessons from Anambra Election
As I said earlier, we recognize that the election we conducted in Anambra State was neither perfect nor the best election we ever conducted, or what we had wished. But we are satisfied that the conduct of the election in spite of the challenges was free, fair and was peaceful; and that the evidence provided to us was insignificant and did not warrant total cancellation of the result. The decision of the Returning Officer, in our view, on the need to have a supplementary election is correct and we will abide by it.
I want to urge all stakeholders to cooperate and join hands with us to ensure that the election in Anambra State is concluded and a return is made. We have promised Nigerians that we as a Commission are non-partisan and we will not collaborate with anybody to undermine the electoral process; that if anybody does anything that is capable of undermining the electoral process, we have the capacity to identify them and once they are identified, we should be able to ensure that they answer to the full requirement of the law.
It is regrettable that in Idemili North local government, we identified the actions or inaction of our Electoral Officer as a major obstacle to successful conduct of the election in that area, and the enormous problem that arose with regard to the election. We have handed over this Electoral Officer to security agencies for investigation, and subsequent arraignment and prosecution. The police are already investigating the matter and, obviously, the matter will be handled appropriately.
I want to assure you that we are also undertaking internal administrative inquiry on the lapses that have been identified, which as we have said do not warrant total cancellation of the results of the election. We are investigating the lapses and if we find any of our staff culpable, they will have to answer for it. Obviously, as a Commission, we are determined to keep on improving and we will ensure that 2015 is much better than 2011 elections.
I regret to say that in spite of our best intentions, as human beings, sometimes we get disappointed.  As much as Nigerians were disappointed with the outcome of the Anambra election, we also as a Commission are disappointed. We wanted it to be the best, it has turned out not to be the best. There were lapses, and we will ensure that all these are investigated, the people responsible identified and appropriate measures taken to rectify the situation as we move towards other elections.

I, therefore, once again reiterate our determination to continue to do our best under all circumstances; and continue to urge all stakeholders to cooperate with us and to also do their best to ensure that elections are free, fair, credible and peaceful. While we are not looking for excuses – and we are not going to make excuses about the lapses in the Anambra election – I must say that making elections successful, credible and peaceful is a joint venture between INEC and all categories of stakeholders. If we are doing our best as a Commission, and many of our staff are doing their best, and yet some stakeholders are there doing all they can to undercut the effort that we are making by either inducing, harassing or assaulting our staff or enticing them to do something wrong; obviously we cannot excuse it, but we cannot also take the entire blame. There are other people who also have the blame in terms of bringing this about.
Nigerians want free, fair and credible elections. All of us that are engaged in this process have a responsibility to ensure that elections are free, fair and credible; and we must come into that process with all our best, together joining hands in order to make it succeed. That is the absolute guarantee for ensuring free, fair and credible elections – not just in 2015, but beyond 2015 in this country.