THE botched National Assembly election of April 2 is enough evidence that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is challenged. As if that were not enough, INEC chair, Attahiru Jega last Thursday, generously prepared foes and friends towards yesterdays elections in a honest exchange with the media, following a briefing wherein he explained preparations as well as listed constituencies where elections could not take place. Jega tried all that was humanly possible to explain what was within the capacity of INEC and what is better imagined.As it were, elections could not hold in 15 senatorial districts and 48 federal constituencies for a number of reasons. According to INEC, there is the need to reprint ballot papers in constituencies where, a significant quantity of ballot papers were used (wasted) in the botched election of April 2. In spite of the suspension, a good number of loyal and patriotic citizens had already voted, even though that amounted to nullity. So, there is the need to replace that quantity that had been thumb or finger printed.In other constituencies, the need to reprint ballot papers arose because some parties logos were missing from the ballot papers that INEC pushed into circulation on April 2. In other words, INEC did not have time to scrutinize what vendors supplied before zero hour. It is not just about logos being missed, but that they are missing haphazardly.For instance, in Nnewi/Ekwusigo federal constituency of Anambra State, the ballot papers supplied did not include the logo of Accord Party. In Oyi/Anyamelu federal constituency also of Anambra, logos of the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) and that of All Progressives Grand Alliance are missing. In the whole of Bayelsa Central District of Bayelsa State, the logo of the APGA is missing. In Benue North District of Benue State, the logo of the CPC is missing. The pattern is not consistent enough to suggest mischief, but it is haphazard enough to suggest recklessness on the part of the vendor and the printer. It suggests a gross absence of professionalism and displays ample commitment to sheer mercantilism. While the survival of Nigeria is the crucial reason for the generous appropriation of scarce resources to INEC, to give the commission ample room to select the very best in a digital world, merchants saw in the exercise an opportunity to make quick returns, thereby throwing INEC into embarrassment and putting the country on edge.When INEC suggested some weeks back that it would not display ballot papers for pre-election inspection by stakeholders, particularly political parties, alleging security reasons, it was clear that INEC had nothing to display because contractors were yet to deliver. Timely delivery would have given INEC time to do random checks, to ascertain compliance with exact specification and specimen copies could have been shown to stakeholders and mistakes could have been corrected, without the knowledge of members of the public. Mistakes are permissible when sufficient time is available to make corrections.Now, INEC said last week that it was torn between using local printers, who could not be trusted with sensitive materials in the first place, to augment the shortfall, or to go back to the same vendor(s) who caused the mess. The issue with local printers is no longer whether they could be relied upon to protect sensitive documents, but now in their capacity to deliver within hours. Going back to the foreign vendor(s) is also fraught with risk, because they could still come up with the same failure they recorded for the April 2 exercise. Any firm that could throw a whole country into confusion is not worth returning to; signing a fresh contract for just a few more ballot papers is a different matter all together. This is no doubt a confusing situation for the entire country, particularly INEC. It is no wonder therefore, that INEC could not think straight for almost one week, because no decision was reached as at Thursday on the way forward regarding printing or no printing. The only concrete decision taken by INEC clearly was the postponement of elections in 15 senatorial districts and 48 federal constituencies.Technically, that was the third postponement in one week. First, INEC, in a knee-jerk reaction to the stalemate shifted the polls to April 4 after the April 2 fiasco. After consultations with other stakeholders on Sunday, April 3, INEC was prevailed upon to shift the polls to April 9; and last Thursday, INEC announced the fresh, selected postponements. No doubt, these are trying times for the entire country and more for the electoral body. What would have happened to the shortfall in ballot papers if the first postponement by INEC was complied with; what time was available between April 2 and 4 to print ballot papers to augment that shortfall; what time was available at that critical time for INEC to even explain the possibility of postponements in those affected districts and constituenciesThe non-disclosure of the identities of the vendors, and the reasons adduced for that stance is one excuse that fails to fly. INEC explained that the sensitivity of the matter and the contractual agreement does not permit disclosure at this point. Public procurement experts should be wondering what manner of agreements INEC entered into that would not permit disclosures within current public procurement regime. The procurement law is very clear on items that could be procured at the level of INEC and the procedure for all other procurements. Could INEC have gotten a waiver, because of the sensitive nature of its assignment and the tight schedule it has operated since July 2010 Subjecting INEC to the bureaucracy of due process could frustrate the entire business for the year. So, is it possible that INEC got a waiver and does such waiver obliterate the requirement of transparency, which is a precursor for accountability A good number of other stakeholders are not aware that INEC got a waiver, and that tends to support insinuations of improper handling of the entire procurement process on the part of the INEC leadership.For that reason, some have advocated a restructuring of the INEC bureaucracy to allow Jega breath fresh air into the place. The procurement process does not seem to have changed from the previous era; even the selection process for the supply of Direct Data Capture machines for the voter registration was fraught with controversy and undue delay, until the exercise almost ran into trouble. The deployment of the machines was a herculean process for INEC and the first week was disastrous, as the machines did not deliver quality service. It took the personnel nearly two weeks to get acclimatized with the system, by which time an enthusiastic populace had lost substantial courage.The series of postponements have also done remarkable damage to voters psyche and it will not be out of place if apathy sets in. Majority of voters do not also know who the would be representatives are, because of nearly twelve years of disconnect between Abuja and the various constituencies across the country. Representatives of the people in Abuja do not have much to do with the people and that is why they do not have the confidence to do door to door campaigns, to show their faces to the people. A good number of the people, including literate, middle class voters do not know the names of their representatives. These same representatives of the people are largely responsible for the failures inherent in the electoral system.When late President Umaru YarAdua announced his desire to santise the electoral system, he thought he was addressing a legislature that was willing to work with him. The blueprint submitted by the Justice Muhammadu Lawal Uwais Electoral Reform Committee (ERC) was comprehensive and far-reaching enough to instill discipline and orderliness into the political space. But the legislature preferred to do its own thing. They began the fruitless journey somewhere in Minna, where they quickly abandoned the process because the Joint Committee on Constitutional Reform was puffed up by mindless ego. Members of the two chambers did not agree on how to share privileges in the committee. That first delay was deep enough and was a constant factor all through the period the committee sat.By the time Jega was appointed in July 2010, both the Electoral Act and the new constitution INEC required to operate were not ready. The funds INEC required to kick-start its process, particularly in a supposedly reformatory atmosphere was not ready. It was the August 18 meeting between Jega and leaders of the political parties, where the INEC boss lamented his constraints that prompted both the executive and legislature to grudgingly produce the laws and the money. From that time, INEC has allowed itself to be woven in the vice-grip of legalism, without a thought for the reality of an unfriendly political space. When Jega accepted to serve as INEC boss, the Commission was already in an accumulated mess of over a decade and there was no breathing space for him to settle down and sanitise the place. Instead of setting a new template and deconstructing the old order, INEC allowed politicians to drive the process and it got terribly hooked.Now, one election is in the kitty, two more to go. At the end of the day, both INEC and other stakeholders would realize that deepening democracy is not all about elections. Jega too, should know better.
Click here to read full news..
