INEC risks prosecution for failing to publish voters’ register online – Yiaga Africa

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) risks criminal liability for failing to publish the national voters’ register online as required by the Electoral Act 2022, Samson Itodo, executive director of Yiaga Africa, has said.

Mr Itodo said the commission was bound by Section 19 of the Act to make the register available online for public scrutiny, warning that its failure to do so ahead of the Anambra State governorship election raised questions about compliance with the law.

He spoke on Friday on Channels Television’s Politics Today programme while discussing the absence of the register from INEC’s website less than three weeks before the election.

PREMIUM TIMES had reported that INEC failed to publish the preliminary voters’ register on its website by the 90-day deadline before the 2027 general election, despite a legal requirement for the register to be made available online for public scrutiny.

Mr Itodo said the wording of Section 19 left no room for the commission to decide whether or not to publish the register online.

“The law is very clear. When you say that the commission shall, it means you must,” he said.

He noted that INEC, under its former chairman, Mahmood Yakubu, had published the register online during the previous electoral cycle, making it accessible to Nigerians.

Mr Itodo said the commission’s obligation to publish the register online is separate from displaying copies at polling units, which INEC said it had already done.

“If INEC has not done that and we are just less than three months to the election, it means that it hasn’t complied with that particular section of the law,” he said.

INEC officials face possible penalties

Mr Itodo said Section 19 provides penalties for officials who fail to comply with the requirements for displaying the voters’ register.

He said an INEC official or staff member convicted of failing to display the register as prescribed by law could face a fine of N100,000, a six-month prison term, or both.

He urged INEC to explain publicly why it had not made the register available online, saying its silence could undermine public confidence in the electoral process.

“I think INEC owes it to the Nigerian people, to Nigerian voters and stakeholders to really officially make a statement as to why it has been unable to implement this part of the law. But this silence does not inspire confidence,” he said.

Mr Itodo said the alleged breach could attract criminal proceedings, adding that while prosecution would ordinarily fall to the state, interested stakeholders could approach the courts to compel the commission to comply with the law.

Display of register differs from distribution to parties

The Yiaga Africa director also sought to distinguish the statutory requirement to display the register for claims and objections from INEC’s separate obligation to provide copies to political parties before an election.

He explained that the display process allows registered voters to inspect their details and report errors for correction.

For instance, a voter whose gender was wrongly recorded could request a correction, while relatives could notify the commission that a deceased person remained on the register.

Mr Itodo said this process was different from distributing the register to political parties, which traditionally receive copies 30 days before an election.

He described the voters’ register as a foundation of the electoral process, arguing that its accessibility was essential to public scrutiny and confidence in elections.

Citizens can publish polling unit results

Mr Itodo also defended the right of citizens, journalists and civil society organisations to publish and aggregate election results already announced publicly at polling units, distinguishing that activity from INEC’s exclusive authority to declare winners and return elected candidates.

He explained that results are announced first at polling units before moving through ward, local government and state collation levels, with the national level completing the process where applicable.

After ballots are counted at a polling unit, the presiding officer records the results on the prescribed result sheet and is required to display them publicly, he said.

Once displayed, the results are in the public domain and can be shared by citizens on social media, according to Mr Itodo.

“Under the law, can any Nigerian take the result and post it on their Twitter page or social? Absolutely, because it’s already public,” he said.

He said INEC’s Result Viewing Portal (IReV) was introduced to strengthen transparency by allowing citizens to compare polling unit results uploaded to the platform with figures presented at subsequent collation stages.

That process, he explained, can help expose discrepancies if results are altered during collation.

READ ALSO: INEC unveils plans to improve safety, participation of PWDs during elections

Aggregating results is not declaring a winner

Mr Itodo said the law distinguishes between announcing results, declaring a winner and returning an elected candidate.

He argued that media organisations and civil society groups do not violate the law by compiling figures from results already announced publicly, provided they do not purport to exercise INEC’s statutory power to declare and return winners.

“What media, civil society can do is they can take results that are already in the public domain, that have been announced by INEC, and aggregate those results. They have not violated the law,” he said.

He said the power to declare a candidate elected and return that candidate rests with INEC, and that publishing or aggregating publicly announced polling unit results does not amount to exercising that power.

Mr Itodo added that independent aggregation could help protect the integrity of the process by making it harder for political actors to pressure election officials to alter results.

He said citizens remained free to share polling unit results they observed, while the formal declaration and return of winners remained the commission’s responsibility.