March 29, 2011 04:56AM
Police boss denies banning camera phones at polling units
The Inspector General of Police, Hafiz Ringim, yesterday dramatically reversed his directive that allegedly banned the use of camera phones at polling stations in the forthcoming elections.
Following widespread condemnation of the order, which was set to be made public yesterday, police sources claimed the Inspector General was misquoted.
The Police boss was reported in the media last week to have ordered his officers – during the police commissioners' conference - not to allow voters use camera phones in the polling units during elections.
Yemi Ajayi, a spokesperson of the police, said in an interview on Monday, that his boss was "quoted out of context."
Mr. Ajayi added that the police boss simply warned that voters should not announce election results as only the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has the constitutional authority to do so.
News of the camera phone ban had led to strong criticism on social media sites like Twitter and Facebook through the weekend and created concerns over the dedication of the Police Force to the conduct of free, fair, and transparent elections.
Once news of the directive started easing its way into the public, political parties and notable Nigerians immediately condemned the move.
Speaking to journalists in Lagos last week, Nobel laureate, Wole Soyinka, slammed the directive as "nonsense and illegal".
"It is stupidity of the security agents to ban Nigerians from taking their cell phones and cameras to polling booths. If they do not go to polling booths, how would they monitor electoral misconducts? People should ignore it because it is contrary to the electoral act," Mr. Soyinka said.
Use it
Although Attahiru Jega, the INEC chairman, met with Mr. Ringim on Monday morning, it was not clear if the ban was discussed.
However, in an interview, the electoral commission distanced itself from such a directive, saying voters are free to use their camera phones at polling stations on election days.
"The position of INEC is very clear. INEC has said anyone can bring their phone or camera to the polling unit. Anything to the contrary is not the position of INEC," Kayode Idowu, the chief press secretary to the INEC chairman, said.
Mr. Idowu added that "INEC is trying to sort things out and is consulting with the security agencies."
Real-time monitoring
Mobile camera phones and other specialised widgets are the contemporary tools of journalism which most observers, professionals, and journalists intend to use to monitor the elections and check rigging and fraudulent manipulations.
Kayode Ajulo, an FCT senatorial candidate for the Labour Party, said that such tools have been of immense help in determination of electoral fraud by the courts in past elections.
"The IG does not even have the right to ban its use," Mr. Ajulo added.
Many of the non governmental organisations planning to monitor the elections with camera phones also said the comments attributed to the police chief were outrageous and that they will not succumb to it.
"We will not succumb to that," Dafe Akpedeye, the first co-chair of an election monitoring group, Project 2011 Swift Count, said.
From: Mobolaji ALUKO <alukome@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 1:45 PM
Subject: SUNDAY MUSINGS: Ensuring "Substantial Compliance" at the Polling Booth 2011 - by Mobolaji Aluko, PhD
To: "Prof. Bolaji Aluko" <alukome@gmail.com>
SUNDAY MUSINGS: Ensuring "Substantial Compliance" at the Polling Booth 2011
By
Mobolaji E. Aluko, PhD
Burtonsville, MD, USA
Sunday August 15, 2010
ABSTRACT
It is argued in this essay that properly street-number-identified polling units with verified electronic transmission accessibility (GSM, Thurya), each outfitted with video/audio monitoring devices to adequately capture the registration, voting, announcement and display of the results processes should be deployed in the upcoming 2011 elections. The Modified Open Secret Balloting system of completed nationwide accreditation before voting is commenced is recommended. Ballot boxes, being designated as "moveable democracy assets", should be equipped with electronic tracking sensors, whereupon their movements will be recorded at some central control room. Officially designated security and observer teams should also be deployed in and around polling units.
REGISTRATION BEFORE ELECTION DAY
Now that INEC and its Chairman Prof. Attahiru Jega have been given N88 billion to obtain – among other things – a new and credible voters' register by any means necessary, using as many registration centers as he considers necessary, one hopes and trust that that is what we will get. One therefore hopes and trusts that the era of duplicate name-and-picture entries, unclear pictures, age-, gender- or profession mismatched entries, or pictures of identifiable "celebrities" (like Mohammed Ali, Mike Tyson, etc.) or politicians in wrong wards (like Bola Ige, Dimeji Bankole, Abike Dabiri in Ekiti State, etc.), is over once and for all in Nigeria, and a true era of continuous registration has begun.
To this end, once the registration machines are in, voters should begin to be registered immediately using as many multiple sources as possible - at each INEC office at the local government headquarters; at offices of selected NGOs and selected community organizations (like churches, mosques, etc.) on a ward-by-ward basis; and at potential polling units. Half-days, and/or full-days off for employees for registration - and requirements by private and public organizations that "No registration, no pay", or "Registraton, half-day additional pay" - should be used as stick and/or carrot.
The new voters register should then be made available,
(i) on websites; such that with name and Voter ID, a registered voter can check his or her own personal registration status;
(ii) to all political parties electronically on DVD (video disc);
(iii) at each INEC office at the local government headquarters; DVD and paper copies relevant to the Local Government;
(iv) to NGOs and selected community organizations (like churches, mosques, etc.) on a ward basis, with DVD and paper copies relevant ONLY to the particular ward.
COMPLIANCE, NON-COMPLIANCE & SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE IN ELECTORAL LAW 2010
The major motivation of this essay is with an eye to electoral dispute resolution, primarily the issue of "substantial compliance" at each polling unit. If with respect to petitions, one searched for the word "compliance" in the new Electoral Law 2010, you will find the Sections 138 and 139 of the Electoral Law, and in particular:
QUOTE
138. (1) An election may be questioned on any of the following grounds, that is to say…
(b) that the election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or non-compliance with the provisions of this Act;………..
139. (1) An Election shall not be liable to be invalidated by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of this Act if it appears to the Election Tribunal or Court that the election was conducted substantially in accordance with the principles of this Act and that the non-compliance did not affect substantially the result of the election.
UNQUOTE
All elections involve Candidates (C) Political Parties (P), Voters (V), Security Forces (S), Observers (O) and the Electoral Umpire/Commission (U), and have Pre-Election, Election-Day and Post-Election Stages.
For example, what happens if any rules put in place to ensure credible elections are violated? Is substantial compliance measured by the number of polling units adversely affected relative to the whole in that ward, or local government or state? Or the number of people adversely affected? Or the number of ballot papers adversely affected? What constitutes "substantial compliance" at a PARTICULAR polling unit, for results from that polling unit to even be accepted?
Until the issue of "substantial compliance" is objectively specified, post-election dispute resolution will be a nebulous art subject to the whims and caprices of judges, many of who might be on the take to pervert justice based on the highest bidder, resulting in elections being actually decided in courtrooms rather than at the polls as a rule rather than the exception. That is a fundamental perversion of electoral democracy.
I focus in this essay is on Election Day Compliance, with particularly emphasis on each Polling Unit, but occasionally delving into Pre-Election-Day and Post-Election-Day issues. Many suggestions below will require additional money to be spent UPFRONT, particularly for information and communications technology (ICT), but it is better for INEC (not to talk of candidates) to spend money UPFRONT than to spend it to pay lawyers (particularly billionaire SANs) and judges for endless litigations post-election. They will save the nation a lot of post-election trauma if implemented.
It is convenient to use the graphic above as a template for discussions.
DEFINITION & ESTABLISHMENT & IDENTIFICATION OF POLLING UNITS
From the Electoral Law 2010:
QUOTE
"Polling unit" means the place, enclosure, booth, shade or house at which voting takes place under this Act ;
Establishment of polling Units
42. The Commission shall establish sufficient number of Polling units in each Registration Area and shall allot voters to such Polling units.
UNQUOTE
The "shade" (under a baobab or iroko tree, say?) or "house" (in Adedibu's house, say?) are worrisome.
It is trivial to presume that if the polling units are not properly identified in sufficient time ahead of Election Day to a large number of voters – and who knows whether the (non-)identification is selective or not, to give (dis)advantage to one candidate or the other? – there is a possibility of substantial non-compliance.
The current nebulous polling unit identifications in many instances ("Under Chief Abagin's Mango Tree", "Courtyard in Front of Emir Umaru's palace", etc.) should be completely abandoned. There should be no polling unit WITHOUT a street address. Granted that in general villages and slums do not have street addresses, but for credible election purpose and working with the local government authorities, streets and street address can be deliberately and intentionally put in place by INEC. How do you for goodness sake get to a spot WITHOUT a street address? How do you get voters to vote in Chief Abagin's compound when Abagin is already known to be sympathetic to Party A?
Primary and secondary schools, religious extra-curricular buildings (not the sanctuaries themselves) and other existing establishments should be used to the greatest extent possible, with INEC refurbishing them where necessary. In fact, INEC should use this opportunity to carry out a social responsibility of assisting as many communities as possible in developing their existing community centers as veritable polling units. We should not need to constantly re-designate polling units with each new election.
All the polling units should be MAPPED for accessibility by GSM – including by which carrier(s). All officials should be equipped with GSM or Thurya units both for timely voice and data transmission of election information.
HOW MANY POLLING UNITS?
Since 1999, 111,430 polling units (PUs) have been deployed in Nigeria in 8,692 wards and 774 local governments, approximated in normal parlance to 120,000 PUs, 9,000 wards and 800 local governments.
Now, typically, registration/voting period in Nigeria is 8 am to 3 pm – 7 hours or 420 minutes. With tight provision for serial voting (that is each voter enters polling unit, verifies voting status, receives ballot paper, marks vote secretly, votes by putting ballot paper into box, exits polling unit) all within 4-5 minutes, we are looking at no more than 100 voters per polling station. With 60 million voters estimated, that would require 600,000 polling units, a far cry from the 120,000 polling units in existence, which is compatible with conventional wisdom (but apparently not legally-binding) maximum of 500 per polling unit.
If serial registration and voting are retained, then the notion of 500 maximum voters per polling unit should be re-considered and reduced to 200, and the number of polling units increased to 240,000. However, if Modified Open Secret Balloting system is introduced, where accreditation is completed nationwide before voting begins, then in fact the number per polling unit can actually be increased to 1,000 – leading to even fewer polling units - without loss of integrity of the system.
This modified balloting system should be considered a purely administrative function, requiring no new Electoral Law nationwide:
- accredit those who wish to vote between (say) 8 am and 11 am;
- commence and proceed with voting for the period 12 noon – 4 pm.
For elaboration on and the advantages of this method deployed on June 12, 1993, please see the companion piece in Appendix 1 ["How Jega Can Achieve Credible Elections in 2011" by Hakeem Jamiu.]
Note that the distribution of polling units will of course also depend on the geography of the wards, etc., and there is no reason why there cannot be more than one polling unit in the same premises, providing each has separate polling officers.
ACCREDITATION ON ELECTION DAY
The above registration status check methods way ahead of Election Day eliminate the ridiculous proposition of requiring people to ascertain their registration status by inspecting names posted on village walls and latrines. This will speed accreditation on Election Day itself.
After each voter has been accredited, he or she should be given (i) a ballot paper, whereupon he proceeds to mark in secret and then drops in a Ballot box (ii) a paper stub, with registration number on it, which he drops in a Stub Box after voting and just before he leaves the polling unit.
The number of accredited voters in the register, the number of total votes in the ballot box and the number of stubs in the Stub box should match.
THE BALLOT PAPER
1. Pictures of ALL candidates validated by INEC for a particular election - and ONLY those candidates - should be on the ballot paper for each particular election. The idea of ONLY names of political parties, including even those that have NO candidates, on a ballot paper should be absolutely unacceptable.
2. There is really no need for constituency-coded (or state-color-coded) ballot papers once candidates' pictures are on ballot papers.
3. Each voter should have be provided with a stub (serially numbered identically with the ballot paper) that he drops in a stub box after voting, but before exiting the polling unit.
THE BALLOT BOX/THE STUB BOX
The ballot box is a moveable valuable asset of INEC. As such, it should be equipped with electronic remote tracking, and their movements reported to some central location – just as cars etc. are tracked. Unusual movements could mean tampering, and should be factored into post-election tribunal inquiries.
After dropping marked ballot paper into ballot box, but before exiting the polling unit, each voter should be required to drop a serially-number stub paper (given during accreditation) into a stub box as a third verification item for the total number of voters in each polling unit.
ANNOUNCEMENT, TRANSMISSION & PASTING OF RESULTS AT/FROM THE POLLING UNIT
The Electoral Law requires that the votes should be counted and the results announced at the polling unit. However, without a record – audio, video or still picture – of the vote counting and announcement, how can the world really know that these important compliant steps actually happened?
A digital record (Audio-tape, video-tape and still pictures) of these events should be required by law as part of the documentation process. The results at polling station should be posted so that they are available for inspection for at least one week after election. Thus results from a particular polling unit should not be accepted legally until there is proof of documentation of in situ counting and announcement.
Currently, transmission of results relies almost solely on manual carriage of completed results forms from the polling unit to local government collation center, then state government collation center, etc., with all the attendant thuggery challenges. Electronic transmission – coupled with the paper trail – should be favored, with each accredited official being given an electronic PIN to authenticate the transmitted results. Such results should be transmitted twice, and not to accepted until two consecutive transmissions match.
SECURITY & OBSERVATION POSTS
The Nigerian Police - and only the police, not the army or SSS - should be deployed as security for civic duty in Polling Units.
A post for accredited election observers should be prominent in each polling unit, whose testimony (if necessary) should be called upon during post-election dispute resolutions.
EPILOGUE: A DISCLAIMER & SOME FINAL NOTES
I have focused on the polling unit in this essay, as the most critical single PHYSICAL asset in the entire electoral process.
However, in fairness, how many ballot boxes are really "snatched and stuffed" to make a difference in the elections? If a person wins by 10,000 votes through ballot stuffing – and if ALL of those boxes had a maximum of 500 votes assigned to the benefactor – then we are talking of 20 snatched/stuffed boxes. With less votes assigned, we may be talking of 35 to 50 snatched boxes. With one box per polling unit, that is a possible 50 polling units with non-compliance – quite a large number!
Are those the kinds of numbers reported? I don't think so.
Clearly, much rigging is mainly AFTER the fact.
Finally, the power of an INEC Chairman is great to assign and re-assign electoral Commissioners - both national and state. So Jega can put his stamp of integrity on these commissioners. He has no excuses. Any hint of scandal: bring them back to Abuja to cool their heels for investigation. No re-assignment from one corrupted post to another. If all the Commissioners take their jobs simply as a Database Management function rather than a political job, it should be a relatively easy. It is only when (like Iwu) they have certain pre-determinations as to who should win certain results do they make moves:
(i) to prevent a certain candidate from running;
(ii) to prevent certain citizens from registering by hiding information as to where to register;
(iii) if registered, to prevent certain citizens from re-certifying their registration status;
(iv) if registered, to prevent them from voting by either hiding information of their polling units, or
preventing them from gaining access to them on election day;
(v) having voted, ultimately disenfranchising them by announcing different results.
Just let the People vote for the Candidates of their Choice - that is Democracy!
We shall see….
APPENDIX I
How Jega Can Achieve Credible Elections in 201
By
Hakeem Jamiu
What Prof. Jega should do to achieve a credible election in 2011 is very simple even if he uses Iwu's voters' register. The solution lies in the procedure for elections. The present method of voting piecemeal from 8am to 3pm would never guarantee a free and fair election as it would continue to encourage thugs to snatch ballot papers and boxes, engage in multiple thumb printing and ballot stuffing. To replace this, there should be accreditation nationwide at the same time between the hours of 8am and 12noon. Secondly, voting should commence nationwide between 12.00- 4pm. But there must be display of voters' register at least one month to the election.
In the widely acclaimed free and fair June 12 elections, a similar procedure was adopted. The only difference is that while there was no ballot papers in the June 12 1993 elections, ballot papers shall be used in the above method. INEC would have announced before the election that part of its guidelines is that accreditation will take place nationwide between 8am and 12noon on the day of election. Any intending voter who fails to do accreditation between the stipulated hours forfeits his chance to vote. Those who have done accreditation can go back home and come back at 12.00 for voting. When accreditation closes and voting starts by 12.00, voters would queue up to obtain ballot papers after their names which had earlier been ticked in the register would have been confirmed by marking their voters' card. This would not take time. The voter then proceeds with his ballot paper to thumbprint for the candidate of his choice. Any voter who fails to join the queue by 1pm latest would have lost his chance to vote even if he had been accredited. This process is expected to be concluded between the hours of 12.00 and 4pm since there are no more than 500 voters in a polling unit. In situations where elections are free and fair, experience has shown that not all voters turn out to vote in a polling unit on Election Day and where the turnout is high; it may be between 60 and 70 percent.
The implication of this method of voting is that it will check multiple voting, ballot snatching, stuffing and multiple thumb printing. The possibility of multiple accreditation with the new voters' register or even Iwu's register is remote since there will be many people at all polling units at the same time. There is no way a Mike Tyson or Jesse Jackson will be accredited in the presence of vigilant genuine voters who would all be there at the same time. There will be no room for thugs to operate because there will be many voters at all polling units at the same time.
My experience during the 2007 general elections and 2009 elections in Ekiti State shows that thugs capitalized on the method of voting whereby most voters would have voted and gone away between 12noon and 3pm when thugs would snatch ballot boxes randomly across polling units. Another implication of this new voting method is that it will be near impossible for a voter to do double accreditation because of the futility of such since voting would take place simultaneously in all the polling units. Voting at the same time in all the polling units is an antidote against thugs coming to a polling unit to shoot into the air to scare voters away because it would be difficult for thugs to disperse multitudes in all polling units at the same time. In the voting method that is presently in use, it is possible for thugs to scare away few voters in a polling unit between the hours of 1pm and 3pm when the queue would have thinned out.
Politicians who would deploy thugs in the proposed voting method would think twice as he would need to deploy thugs to all polling units at the same time. Furthermore, voting would not have commenced until 12.00pm and the polling unit will be crowded till end of voting at 4pm. This will dissuade thugs from operating. It is also going to be fruitless to snatch ballot papers to thumbprint as it will be difficult to bring the thumbprinted ballot papers stuffed in ballot boxes back to the polling units at 4pm as all polling units will be heavily crowded with voters who would wait for counting of ballots and announcement of results. If the thugs per adventure comes to a polling unit at the end of voting to disrupt counting, all voters would then witness that voting process was disrupted and the result of such a polling unit would be cancelled by the Presiding Officer.
The proposed voting method will also make it difficult for party agents in conjunction with the unscrupulous INEC officials to share unused ballot papers in the full glare of all the voters in that polling unit. It was possible in 2007 and subsequent elections because between 1pm and 3pm most polling units would have been deserted leaving only the party agents and acquiescing INEC officials. In June 1993 elections, voters were accredited at the same time throughout the federation while voters queued up behind the symbols of the candidates of their choice. They were thereafter counted and results announced. The counting was such that all voters on queue would participate so there was no juggling of figures. The figures were thereafter given to party agents who took them to the ward collation centers. In a matter of minutes, result of all polling units in a ward is known despite the absence of mobile phones at that time. If not for the open nature of this system, it would have been best for our situation as no ballot boxes and papers would be available to snatch and counting of voters would be done at the same time nationwide.
In Nigerian elections, rigging is done on the field and on the table. If rigging fails on the field , it is very difficult to do it on the table. When results are announced at polling units, field activities ends and collation at ward, local government and state levels marks the beginning of table activities. Rigging rarely occurs at collation centers as it is very difficult except the place is invaded by armed thugs or compromised security agents. Even at that, the results will not tally with ballots and other entries recorded at the polling units and this would be easily exposed at election petition tribunal. This was corroborated at the Supplementary Election Petitions Tribunal in Ekiti State in 2009 where figures entered in result sheets in most polling units did not tally with the number of accredited voters. If we conduct a free and fair election, there will be less pressure on the judiciary to adjudicate on election petitions and the governments that emerge through such a credible process would be seen by all as legitimate. This is underscored by Professor Claude Ake in 1992 when he noted,"…where the election does not reflect the will of the people, what results from it cannot be democratic and cannot inspire or arouse the respect of the people, such elections do not empower the people and the ensuing governments do not see themselves as being responsible to the people, and the people would therefore not be available to support or defend such governments and the system they represent".
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX II
From Electoral Law 2010
QUOTE
Grounds of petition
138. (1) An election may be questioned on any of the following grounds, that is to say:
(a) that a person whose election is questioned was, at the time of the election, not qualified to contest the election;
(b) that the election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or non-compliance with the provisions of this Act;
(c) that the respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election; or
(d) that the petitioner or its candidate was validly nominated but was unlawfully excluded from the election.
(2) An act or omission which may be contrary to an instruction or directive of the Commission or of an officer appointed for the purpose of the election but which is not contrary to the provisions of this Act shall not of itself be a ground for questioning the election.
Certain defects not to invalidate election
139. (1) An Election shall not be liable to be invalidated by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of this Act if it appears to the Election Tribunal or Court that the election was conducted substantially in accordance with the principles of this Act and that the non-compliance did not affect substantially the result of the election.
(2) An election shall not be liable to be questioned by reason of a defect in the title, or want of title of the person conducting the election or acting in the office provided such a person has the right or authority of the Commission to conduct the election.
UNQUOTE
QUOTE
Bribery and conspiracy
124. (1) Any person who does any of the following:
(a) directly or indirectly by himself or by any other person on his behalf, gives, lends or agrees to give or lend, or offers any money or valuable consideration;
(b) directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, corruptly makes any gift, loan, offer, promise, procurement or agreement to or for any person, in order to induce such person to procure or to endeavour to procure the return of any person as a member of a legislative house or to an elective office or the vote of any voter at any election;
(c) upon or in consequence of any gift, loan, offer, promise, procurement or agreement corruptly procures, or engages or promises or endeavours to procure, the return of any person as a member of a legislative house or to an elective office or the vote of any voter at any election;
(d) advances or pays or causes to be paid any money to or for the use of any other person, with the intent that such money or any part thereof shall be expended in bribery at any election, or who knowingly pays or causes to be paid any money to any person in discharge or repayment of any money wholly or in part expended in bribery at any election;
(e) after any election directly, or indirectly, by himself, or by any other person on his behalf receives any money or valuable consideration on account of any person having voted or refrained from voting, or having induced any other person to vote or refrain from voting or having induced any candidate to refrain from canvassing for votes for himself at any such election,
commits an offence and on conviction shall be liable to a maximum fine of N500,000 or 12 months imprisonment or both.
(2) A voter commits an offence of bribery where before or during an election directly or indirectly himself or by any other person on his behalf, receives, agrees or contracts for any money, gift, loan, or valuable consideration, office, place or employment, for himself, or for any other person, for voting or agreeing to vote or for refraining or agreeing to refrain from voting at any such election.
(3) Nothing in this section shall extend or apply to money paid or agreed to be paid for or on account of any lawful expenses bona fide incurred at or concerning any election..
(4) Any person who commits the offence of bribery is liable on conviction to a maximum fine of N500,000 or imprisonment for 12 months or both.
(5) Any person who conspires, aids or abets any other person to commit any of the offences under this part of this Act shall be guilty of the same offence and punishment thereto.
(6) For the purposes of this Act, a candidate shall be deemed to have committed an offence if it was committed with his knowledge and consent or the knowledge and consent of a person who is acting under the general or special authority of the candidate with reference to the election……..
Undue Influence
130. A person who—
(a) corruptly by himself or by any other person at any time after the date of an election has been announced, directly or indirectly gives or provides or pays money to or for any person for the purpose of corruptly influencing that person or any other person to vote or refrain from voting at such election, or on account of such person or any other person having voted or refrained from voting at such election; or
(b) being a voter, corruptly accepts or takes money or any other inducement during any of the period stated in paragraph (a) of this section, commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine of N100,000 or 12 months imprisonment or both.
UNQUOTE
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
No comments:
Post a Comment