Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Open Peer Review on Qeios
Government interference in election administration and lethal electoral
irregularities in Africa: Evidence from Nigeria
Uchenna C. Obiagu1, Ifeanyichukwu M. Abada1
1 University of Nigeria
Funding: No specific funding was received for this work.
Potential competing interests: No potential competing interests to declare.
Abstract
Extant literature is replete with fine-grained explanations of problems of electoral irregularities in developing countries, but has not
acknowledged how government interference in election management results in electoral irregularities. Thus, this study uses micro-level
analysis to argue that Nigeria’s Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has not considerably asserted its independence to
guarantee quality elections due to government interference in its management of Nigerian elections. The study leverages key informant
interviews, available documents, and personal experience premised on in-depth descriptive statistical and content analyses. The data
elicited from these methods reveals that government interference in INEC membership composition, finances, and operations considerably
accounts for recurring lethal electoral irregularities and deflates public confidence in the electoral process to stunning lows in Nigeria. This
interference also exposes the weakness of government-driven electoral reforms, which underscore the need for voter-driven reformation to
usher in an electoral system that is best and acceptable to the majority of the voting population in Nigeria and elsewhere.
Uchenna C. Obiagu
Department of Political Science, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Enugu State, Nigeria
Email: ucobiagu@gmail.com
ORCID: 0000-0003-4286-0263
Ifeanyichukwu M. Abada
Department of Political Science, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Enugu State, Nigeria
Email: ifeanyi.abada@unn.edu.ng
Qeios, CC-BY 4.0 · Article, July 4, 2023
Qeios ID: FEUGJY · https://doi.org/10.32388/FEUGJY 1/21
Keywords: elections, electoral irregularities, government interference, illiberal democracy, Nigeria, Africa.
Introduction
The 1990s is regarded as a glorious period for Africa in its quest for representative electoral democracy. Some scholars like Schraeder (1995)
and Anku (2022) have oft-referred the period as Africa’s third wave of democratization, springtime, or second independence. This period
began with the 1990 protest against an undemocratic rule in the Republic of Benin to the 1999 commencement of democratic rule in Nigeria –
one of the biggest countries on the continent. Between 1999 and 1999, many African countries dethroned dictatorial, military, or one-party
states and embraced multiparty politics embedded in electoral democratic practice. These countries respectively established electoral
institutions like electoral management bodies (EMBs) as statutory authorities charged with election administration in line with global practice.
These EMBs are established by the respective constitutions of their countries. Their independence is also enshrined in the constitution to
ensure they organize credible elections and deepen democracy on the continent. For instance, Articles 45 of the 1991 Zambian Constitution,
Article 46 of the 1992 Ghanaian Constitution, and Section 158 of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution, respectively guaranteed the independence
or autonomy of the Zambian, Ghanaian, and Nigerian EMBs. Furthermore, the electoral body’s principal officers like the chairman, deputy
chairmen, and other critical members are all appointed by their respective presidents (see Article 43 of Ghana Constitution, 1992; Article 5 of
Electoral Commission of Zambia Act, 2016; Section 154 and Part I of the Third Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
[CFRN], 1999).
Again, the 2017 fraud-infected presidential election in Kenya and the 2019 Malawian “tipex” presidential poll were all monitored and certified
by both local and foreign election observers, but the elections were voided by the Kenyan and Malawian supreme courts on the grounds of
irrepressible electoral irregularities that represent a deflection of the electoral laws (Gruenbaum, 2020; de Freytas-Tamura, 2017). These raise
questions about the usefulness of election observers and cast indelible aspersions on their armchair election observations. Similarly,
elections in Nigeria, particularly the poorly managed 2011 elections received the certification of election observers as being credible (Human
Rights Watch, 2011). But unlike in Kenya and Malawi, the Nigerian courts joined the league of election certification institutions and have
always upheld all (whether fraud-infested or not) presidential elections held in the country since 1999.
Flawed elections leading to violence sometimes remain unnoticed in otherwise peaceful societies and, in some cases, they coexist with
electoral violence without the shadow of the gun to destabilize the societies (Staniland, 2014). For illustration, elections in Benin, Malawi, and
Zambia have witnessed isolated incidents of violence without leading to instances of large-scale communal conflict or civil war (Fjelde and
Höglund, 2021; Brosché, Fjelde & Höglund, 2019). These countries are domiciled in a continent where elections are heavily characterized by
large-scale bloodshed. Unlike the above scenario, a significant share of electoral violence is committed in societies where different forms of
violence co-exist, including ethnocommunal violence, civil violence, insurgency leading to the militarization of the electoral process, and
government repression (Onuoha et al., 2020; Harish and Toha 2017; Goldsmith, 2015). Elections in some developing countries like Kenya,
Thailand, Nigeria, India, Cambodia, and Côte d'Ivoire are far from being peaceful and electoral violence occurs in parallel to existing long-
standing armed conflicts (Fjelde and Höglund, 2021; Brosché, Fjelde & Höglund, 2019; Norris, Frank & i Coma, 2014).
Developing countries are not only concerned about contentious electoral contests as advanced democracies like the United States, the United
Kingdom, and Canada have had their fair share. For instance, since the 2000 U.S. presidential election in Florida, American election politics
shifted from the usual debates over issues on the development of democracy to debates about voter fraud, suppression of votes, and the
danger of online voting to democracy (Dill, 2016; Wang, 2012; Minnite, 2010). Voting in the world-acclaimed unbreachable bastion of
democracy is being viewed from the prism of intolerant to defeat, invasion, and voting wars (Araneta, 2022; Hansen, 2012). The 2020 U.S.
presidential election is characterized by citizens’ distrust in the electoral process (Kousser, 2023 Pildes, 2020).
Qeios, CC-BY 4.0 · Article, July 4, 2023
Qeios ID: FEUGJY · https://doi.org/10.32388/FEUGJY 2/21
Nevertheless, Africa has become a case of mixed realities in that while some elections are comparatively credible and peaceful, others are
grossly marked by varying degrees of irregularities. In some states, these irregularities merely manifest in electoral malpractice. In others,
they have become violent, bloody, and lethal. Still, in others, electoral institutions like the EMBs, the courts, and security agencies have
demonstrated confidence and independence in the face of difficulty to organize acceptable elections in some countries but not so in others.
Thus, this study raises the question as to why some electoral institutions such as the EMBs and the courts have asserted their independence
and recorded improvement in their election management and adjudication functions; others are yet to achieve a similar feat. Political parties
have deployed both legal and mostly illegal political strategies to increase their odds of victory and have, most times, outsmarted the weak
electoral commissions and the courts to deliver their strategies (cf. Bratton, 2008). Notwithstanding the burgeoning literature that confirms a
correlation between electoral irregularities (basically expression in electoral violence that leads to death) and depleting value of democracy
(mainly expressed in voter participation), scholars relatively know less about the undermining effects of government interference in EMB’s
management of elections on life-taking electoral irregularity.1 The areas of this interference that are of concern to this study include EMBs’
membership composition, finances, and operations as a primary institution responsible for election management.
Specifically, elections in Nigeria have not only been contentious, controversial, and contested (Mbah, Nwangwu & Ugwu, 2019), but they have
also become violent, deadly, and life-taking (Angerbrandt, 2018; Ashindorbe, 2018). While some scholars argue that elections in Nigeria are
highly militarized and deployment of security personnel to secure the election environment done in a fashion akin to a nation in a war situation
(Mbah et al., 2020), others argue that they exude a sense of ethnoreligious dislikes expressed in hate speech that often leads to election
violence (Ezeibe, 2020). To contribute to this debate, the study undertakes a micro-level analysis of Nigeria’s fourth republic to shed light on a
macro-level phenomenon of government interference in election administration. Government usually interferes in election administration to
increase its chances of winning to remain in power and, most times, this leads to electoral irregularities that become violent, bloody, and
lethal.
After this introduction, the study has four major sections: (i) theoretical/conceptual understanding, (ii) methodology that underpins the study,
(iii) results, and (iv) discussion. It ends with a concluding section that depicts its recommendations and the need for further studies.
Theoretical understanding of illiberal democracy
The study adopts illiberal democracy as a framework of analysis to explain how government interference in election administration
undermines the democratic process in developing African countries, using Nigeria as a frame of reference. Before the early 1990s, illiberal
democracy (a concept employed to describe a system that has features of democracy like the existence of electoral bodies, periodic
multiparty elections, and judicial systems, but does not behave like democracy in operations) was not in the lexicon of political scientists.
Thus, the illiberal democracy thesis is traceable to Bell et al.'s 1995 book: Towards Illiberal Democracy in Pacific Asia. The authors used the
illiberal democracy argument to challenge Francis Fukuyama’s 1991 end-of-history thesis, which contended that political history was
culminating in the global rule of liberal democracy embedded in capitalism. They queried Fukuyama's thesis for not representing the situation
in Pacific Asia where illiberal democratic features have defined the practice of democracy in the region, a situation electoral reforms and the
rev for biometric devices as anti-rigging tools have not remedied. The theory was further developed and popularized by liberal scholars like
Zakaria (1997), Christie (1998), Sajó (2021), and Wagrandl (2021).
Accordingly, an illiberal democracy is a government system that hides its nondemocratic credentials behind formal democratic institutions
(Bonet & Zamorano, 2021). While some scholars and authors query the existence of illiberal democracy, others who believe in its reality do
not have a common ground on how to describe it (Self, 2022; Mounk, 2020; Plattner, 2019). There is a contention that illiberal democratic
leaders may ignore constitutional term limits on their tenures and jeopardize democratic growth in their countries (Mounk, 2020). In Africa,
some countries grapple with unpopular sit-tight imperial presidents who have indulged in term-limit extensions beyond the usual constitutional
two-term limits to remain in power for decades.
Qeios, CC-BY 4.0 · Article, July 4, 2023
Qeios ID: FEUGJY · https://doi.org/10.32388/FEUGJY 3/21
The continent is further bedeviled by other challenges that include 'smart' African politicians that outsmart modern digital technologies to
manipulate the electoral process and determine its outcome, contested election outcomes, and the recent breakdown of democratic systems
emanating from "constitutional" military coups in Chad, Mali, Guinea, Sudan, and Burkina Faso, as well as failed coup attempts reported in
Central African Republic and Guinea-Bissau (Sany, 2022). In fact, the continent has had to contend with the calculated suppression of dissent
and criminalization or persecution of popular opposition candidates in ‘make-belief’ multiparty competitive elections (Cheeseman, 2021), the
changing value of violence as a lucrative strategy for leadership recruitment (Obiagu et al., 2022; Obiagu, Udeji-Okppalaku & Udeh, 2021); the
unending large-scale insurgency and insecurity that arose from unfulfilled election promises (Anku, 2022). Again, illiberal democracy, as
opposed to liberal democracy, which protects individual rights and limits government operations, hampers democratic values on fundamental
human rights (Plattner, 2019).
Elections in an illiberal democratic setting are usually manipulated or rigged and their outcomes are deliberately altered. They rarely provide
the opportunities for voters to choose their country's leaders through the assessment of their policies encapsulated in their manifestos. Most
times, electoral contests merely serve the purpose of legitimizing the government and thereby consolidating the incumbent (Nyyssönen &
Metsälä, 2020). The authors just referenced further note that when elections are manipulated, they endanger the operation and
pseudomization of democracy. In this context, elections and other democratic institutions become adapted patterns of authoritarianism.
There is a contention as to whether illiberal democracy has anything in common with democracy. Some scholars like Sajó (2021) and
Wagrandl (2021) argue that illiberal democracy should be counted as a type of democracy because it is democratic in a plebiscitarian sense
and more true to democracy's roots. In reverse, some critical scholars contend that it should be acknowledged or recognized by its
authoritarian operations and, as such, should be associated with authoritarianism (cf. Christie, 1998; Diamond, 2002; Schedler, 2006;
DeVotta, 2010). These scholars further argue that classifying illiberal democracy as democratic is overly mild to illiberal regimes. They
suggest such descriptions as electoral authoritarianism, competitive authoritarianism, and soft authoritarianism as being adequate for illiberal
democracy. This unending argument is best appreciated by exploring the practice of electoral democracy in a historical context on the
continent.
The practice of electoral democracy in Africa
Elections (whether organized in a modern setting or not) have been an integral part of African history and can be traced back to the pre-
colonial era when “some [African] societies took decisions through voting either by representation or through a general assembly” (Sule &
Sambo, 2019: 109). A historical study in Africa records that 321 legislative and 167 presidential elections were held both in authoritarian and
democratic settings between the period of independence (1946) and 1996 (Golder & Wantcheko, 2004). The study further notes that Africa
has witnessed only 189 country-years of democracy against 1823 country-years of dictatorship between 1946 and 2000.
Further, the end of the Cold War in 1989 occasioned by systemic reforms embedded in Gorbachev's economic restructuring (perestroika) and
openness in the polity (glasnost) eased the geopolitical tensions of the time and opened a new vista of political changes in other parts of the
world. In 1990, the Republic of Benin became the precursor to Huntington's (1991) third wave of democratization in Africa. Consequently, the
Beninese citizens protested against the corrupt dictatorial rule of Mathieu Kerekou and the protest yielded a "National Conference of Active
Forces of the Nation" which seized power from the dictator and launched a transition to democracy (Diamond & Plattner, 1999).
By 1994, nearly all sub-Saharan African countries underwent significant political reforms. A total of 29 countries (including Zambia in 1991 and
Kenya in 1992) organized widely participated in 54 elections in which more than half were observed to be free with clear winners. Between
1995 and 1997, 16 countries successfully held second-round elections (Bratton & van de Walle, 1997) and only four sub-Saharan African
countries did not embrace some sort of competitive elections (Gibson, 2002). Nigeria joined the league of multiparty democracies on May 29,
1999, which commenced the country’s fourth republic.
Qeios, CC-BY 4.0 · Article, July 4, 2023
Qeios ID: FEUGJY · https://doi.org/10.32388/FEUGJY 4/21
Although some of the 1990s political transitions in Africa later took divergent directions, the development only demonstrated the divergent
illiberalities of modern democracy, reflected in its composite nature, and the complexity of the African peculiarity (Carbone & Cassani, 2016).
The prevailing reality today is that some of the elections held in Africa have turned out bad and lethal, thereby waning public trust in them and
undermining their democratic features as a peaceful strategy for competing interest mediation.2 The widely held optimism in the 1990s that
multiparty elections would provide the basis on which voters choose leaders that would promote the security of their lives and property as well
as better their lots is today dying because it is either the power to govern does not truly emanate from the voters or a proportional minority is
responsible for leadership recruitment. Nigeria represents this situation in Africa due to government interference in election administration.
Government interference in election management in Nigeria
The Nigerian government has a proclivity to interfere in every stratum of the Nigerian society and electoral institutions are not exceptions to
this interference. Government interference is a subtle manipulative strategy government employs to influence the electoral process and
determine its outcomes usually in its favour. In the context of election management in Nigeria, Section 158 of the CFRN guarantees the
requisite autonomy of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC or the Commission). The Section provides that the Commission
shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other authority or person (CFRN, 1999).
Regrettably, this autonomy is punctured by another constitutional provision vide Section 154 and Part I of the Third Schedule to the 1999
CFRN that empowers the president to appoint INEC’s principal officers like the Chairman, 12 National Electoral Commissioners, and 37
Resident Electoral Commissioners. Furthermore, INEC finances are subjected to presidential supervision through the Budget Monitoring and
Price Unit and Federal Ministry of Finance between 1999 and January 2022 (Federal Republic of Nigeria [FRN], 2002, 2006, 2010), instead of
legislative oversight by the federal legislature. Although the touted Electoral Act of 2022 provides for the early (not later than one year)
release of election funds to INEC, the president (instead of budgetary procedures with legislative oversight) still retains the power to release
INEC funds in the extant Act. This retention places a question mark on the pursuit of credible and clean elections in Nigeria.
Since 1999, elections organized by INEC are not free from government interference. The various electoral reforms intended to improve the
quality of Nigerian elections have suffered from a similar fate. For instance, the use of new technologies, a journey that began in Nigeria with
the automated fingerprint identification system (AFIS) in 2011 (Ladipo, 2022), faces asphyxiation and suffocates because INEC depends on
the government for requisite support. This explains the reality that surrounds poor technology policy implementation in the country. This
journey is associated with selective piecemeal implementation. For instance, the AFIS use by INEC was restricted to biometric voter
registration. The registration, which was the fallout of the irregularities that grossly marred the 1998-9 transition elections and the 2007
general elections, laid the foundation for the production of permanent voter's cards (PVCs) and the adoption of smart card readers during the
2015 elections.3 The smart card reader is more reliable than the AFIS. Hence, the former replaced the latter during the 2015 elections.
With the use of smart card readers for the 2015 elections, the card became a legal condition or requirement to participate in Nigerian
elections (INEC, 2015a) even though the legality of these biometric devices is highly debatable (Nigeria Civil Society [NCS] Situation Room,
2015a). The challenges that heralded the use of these devices in the 2015 elections forced INEC to jettison its biometric guidelines and
adopted the use of fraud-promoting Incidence Forms. In specific terms, this directive violated Clause 8(b) of INEC guidelines on the use of
card readers for accreditation (INEC, 2015b). The guidelines did not make any provisions for any other means in the event of card reader
failure. Thus, Iwuoha (2018) averred that the Commission nevertheless went ahead to violate its set rules by clearing voters by hand, thereby
undermining the very purpose for which biometric technology was adopted.
The directive by INEC to use Incidence Forms implied the adoption of a dual accreditation procedure in the 2015 elections and a reversion to
the problem it set out to address. The dual accreditation procedure is one in which voters are either electronically accredited with smart card
readers or manually with Incidence Forms. These forms were introduced to remedy the problems of device failures. Unfortunately, This
adoption removed the electronic safeguard the devices provided by way of securing the electoral process and exposed it to possible
Qeios, CC-BY 4.0 · Article, July 4, 2023
Qeios ID: FEUGJY · https://doi.org/10.32388/FEUGJY 5/21
manipulations like ghost voting beyond the actual number of voters that came out to vote (NCS Situation Room, 2015b). It also paved the
way for various forms of election manipulation by the politicians like double/multiple thumb printing to widen one’s winning probability.
Although the 2019 INEC guidelines provided for the use of Incidence Forms for voter accreditation (INEC, 2019), their use exacerbated the
problem of electoral fraud during the 2019 elections.
The repeal of the amended 2010 Electoral Act by the Electoral Act of 2022 eliminates the use of Incidence Forms and any form of manual
accreditation. It recognizes the biometric voter accreditation system (BiVAS) as the only tool for accreditation. Although the BiVAS machine is
also used for the electronic transmission of results, voting in Nigeria is presently governed by manual methods. Thus, Nigeria’s electoral
system is presently governed by biometric voter registration and accreditation, manual voting, and a combination of manual and electronic
result management. The interplay of this complexity occasioned by government interference still exacerbates the incidence of electoral
irregularities and credible management of elections in Nigeria. In all, Nigeria has held seven quadrennial general elections intermediated by
eight off-cycle governorship elections that emanated from contested governorship election outcomes in its eight federating states of Anambra,
Bayelsa, Kogi, Ekiti, Osun, Edo, Ondo, and Imo (Obiagu et al., 2022).
Conceptual understanding of electoral irregularities and voter participation
Electoral irregularities, as a concept, have always been a thorn in the flesh of credible management of elections. They represent flawed or
manipulated elections that deflate voter participation. As a complex concept that represents a subtle deviation from established electoral
procedures, electoral irregularities manifest in various forms as government interference meant to increase one’s winning chances and
electoral malpractice. It can begin with flawed voter registration through electoral malpractice and progress into life-taking thuggery and
violence. In Nigerian, elections are undermined by electoral irregularities that triggered a series of opposition protests and resulted in the
demand for election cancellation and removal of some key INEC officers (EU Election Observation Mission [EOM], 2015). Electoral
irregularities run at variance with the global standards on credible elections captured in Article 21(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, which states that the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government (United Nations, 1948).
Again, flawed elections arising from irregularities can trigger electoral violence, undermine free choice, and lead to unanticipated
consequences (Birch, Daxecker & Höglund, 2020). They can also endanger the quality of democracy and the political process (Mahmood,
2020) and undermine confidence in elected authorities, damage voting turnout, trigger protests, exacerbate conflict, and occasionally lead to
regime change (Norris, 2014). Evidently, Norris (2014) argues that flawed, or even failed, contests are thought to wreck fragile progress.
Undoubtedly, manipulated electoral contests jeopardize and exacerbate tensions between those celebrating the winning candidates and
those sympathetic to the losing candidates. This, ultimately, has serious undermining effects on the legitimacy of democratic systems.
Impliedly, electoral irregularities vitiate the idea of credibility, undermine voter participation, and result in a minority electoral democracy in
which a few electors determine their leaders against the majority demand of democracy. Irregularity-free elections reflect a high degree of
integrity, which requires an atmosphere free of interference, fear, intimidation, or manipulation at any stage of the electoral process. Ladipo
(2022) notes that election rigging begins from an unreliable register of voters, suggesting that an election with integrity begins from a voter
register with integrity. A secure and peaceful election environment facilitates free, fair, and credible elections. Tranquil conditions in and
around voting sites lessen the problems that could compromise the integrity of records, turnout, or election results. Voters must be able to
vote without fear and monitors must be able to observe without intimidation. Candidates must be able to campaign without the fear that their
supporters will be harmed or even killed.
Voter participation denotes inclusivity and inclusivity implies the involvement of all willing eligible voters in the electoral process. Voter
participation is inextricably linked to voter turnout, which is measured as a percentage of votes cast at an election, including invalid votes
(Solijonov (2016). Voter turnout is one of the crucial indicators of how citizens participate in the decision-making on leadership recruitment
and the governance of their country. Higher voter turnout is in most cases a sign of the vitality of democracy, while lower turnout depicts voter
Qeios, CC-BY 4.0 · Article, July 4, 2023
Qeios ID: FEUGJY · https://doi.org/10.32388/FEUGJY 6/21
apathy and mistrust of the political process (Solijonov, 2016; Mahmud, 2015; Dettrey & Schwindt-Bayer, 2009). High voter participation gives
legitimacy to those in power, increases the authority of the democratic system, and leads to the absence or less occurrence of violence and
instability (Franklin, 2004; Powell, 1986).
Methodology
The study adopted key informant interviews, available documents, and personal experience as active participants in Nigerian elections since
1999. This is meant to generate detailed information to explain how government interference in election management triggers electoral
irregularities and results in lethal election violence and voter apathy. The study leveraged the extensive studies on elections in developing
countries and embellished the literature with interview contents generated from nationally represented 12 Nigerian states.
For convenience, flexibility, and freedom from bias, we adopted purposive and random sampling techniques. Accordingly, the 12 states were
purposefully selected and they comprised two from each of the six geopolitical zones in Nigeria. Three respondents were randomly selected
from each state from the population of informed voters, party candidates, key INEC staff, election observers, and media groups. This
amounted to a total of 36 anticipated interviews. However, 21 interviews were successfully conducted (see Table 1). The 21 valid interviews
represent an average of 58.3 percent response rate. We recorded the least response rate from the northeast geo-political zone with 50%
(which is satisfactory based on our 50% benchmark) while the South-east recorded the highest response rate. A combination of survey
strategies was adopted to generate primary data. These are face-to-face and phone interviews, and interview schedules, conveniently
interfaced with the use of relevant social media instruments in Nigeria (Table 1). Subsequently, references will be made to these interviews
based on the serial numbers in Table 1.
S/№ G-p Zone State Medium № of
SI
ZT
(№) ZRR (%)
1. North-central Benue ISTRA/PC 3
2. North-central Niger ISTRA/W hatsApp 1 4 66.7
3. North-east Adamawa ISTRA/PC/WhatsApp 1
4. North-east Taraba ISTRA/PC/WhatsApp 2 3 50.0
5. North-west Kaduna ISTRA/PC/WhatsApp 2
6. North-west Kano ISTR A/PC/WhatsApp 2 4 66.7
7. South-east Enugu FTF/PC/WhatsApp 2
8. South-east Imo FTF/PC/WhatsApp 3 5 83.3
9. South-south C/River ISTRA/PC/Gmail 2
10. South-south Rivers ISTRA/PC/W hatsApp 2 4 66.7
11. South-west Lagos ISTRA/PC/WhatsApp 2
12. South-west Oyo ISTRA/PC/Gmail 2 4 66.7
Total 24 24
Table 1. Interviews and Interview Schedule Administration and Collection
Note: G-p means geo-political, SI means successful interview, ZT means zonal total, ZRR means zonal response rate, ISTRA means
“interview schedule through research assistant”, and PC means “phone call”. Computation for ZRR is based on 3 interviews from two selected
states in each geo-political zone.
The data were analyzed with the use of descriptive statistics and content analysis. While descriptive statistics were employed to summarize
and present primary and national election death and participation data, content analysis was embellished with personal experience to analyze
Qeios, CC-BY 4.0 · Article, July 4, 2023
Qeios ID: FEUGJY · https://doi.org/10.32388/FEUGJY 7/21
secondary data. All statistical computations are done with web-based Social Science Statistics software. The descriptive statistical tools
adopted include charts and simple percentages. While we made efforts to use the mean to centrally measure the average differences in the
data, the level of deviation was standardized, and the difference between the mean and median was determined with the skewness analysis.
The study is expressed in categorical variables in which chi-square is used for association analysis to ascertain the suppressing effects of
lethal election violence on voter participation.
Study area
Nigeria is a federation that comprises northern and southern blocs, divided into six geopolitical zones with a total of 36 federating states and a
federal capital territory (FCT) located in Abuja. There are 774 local government areas (LGAs: 768 in 36 states, 6 in Abuja) that make up
Nigeria’s electoral constituencies. A total of 176,846 polling units spread across 8,809 INEC-created registration areas/wards for election
management in the federation. Thus, the management of elections in Nigeria falls within the INEC purview.
The INEC is a federal executive body established to organize elections for the president, governors, federal and state lawmakers, and area
council members. It derives its legal existence as a body corporate with perpetual succession from Section 153(1) (f) of the CFRN (1999).
Given that elections are taken to be the fulcrum that pivots the lever of democratic operations, the INEC occupies a strategic position in the
practice of democracy in Nigeria as elsewhere in the world. Hence, some scholars have needlessly taken elections to be the equivalence of
democracy, even when autocratic settings have held elections (Mackie, 2009).
Irrespective of perspectives, elections have come to embody the most defining feature of representative democracy. Although election
management generally connotes the idea of multi-stakeholders, electoral bodies largely play a significant role that other stakeholders are not
privileged to play. Like judges who are seen as final arbiters, EMB officers are only electoral umpires who should be firm in all their decisions
to ensure that credible elections are held and valid votes are counted to determine election winners.
Results
In this section of the study, statistical data (results) are presented and analyzed to support our argument that government interference in
election administration is at the back of the deplorable state of democracy in Nigeria. This condition arises from life-taking electoral
irregularities that have consistently defined Nigerian elections and resulted in voter disinterest between 1998-9 and 20233. Thus, the
presentation and analysis of government interference are done in three sub-sections: (i) INEC membership composition together with other
staff, (ii) INEC finances, and (iii) INEC operations.
Results for membership composition of Independent National Electoral Commission
The Nigerian President is empowered in Section 5 of the 1999 CFRN to exercise the executive powers of the Federation, which include the
appointment of 13 INEC principal officers in consultation with the Council of State subject to confirmation by the Nigerian Senate. These
officers recruit other INEC staff by exercising delegated presidential powers (Akinduro, 2011).
Excluding the chairman, the 12 INEC members are appointed two from each of the six geopolitical zones that make up the Federation. Their
appointment is based on Nigeria’s federal character principle, which is a quota system/formula that promotes national unity and equitable
representation of Nigerian entities based on LGA or state of origin.4 But when the available vacancies cannot be distributed evenly among the
LGAs or states, a zonal consideration applies based on the six geo-political zones or a regional consideration between northern and southern
regions. The chairman and members of the Commission shall be persons of unquestionable integrity and not less than fifty years and forty
years of age, respectively.
Qeios, CC-BY 4.0 · Article, July 4, 2023
Qeios ID: FEUGJY · https://doi.org/10.32388/FEUGJY 8/21
Figure 1. The organizational chart/hierarchy of INEC principal officers and staff
Source: authors’ compilation with data from CFRN (1999), Akinwale (2023)
As of 2019, there are about 16,000 permanent staff under INEC's employ to manage elections in 119,974 polling units. This figure, which
represents a fraction of one permanent INEC staff to 7.5 polling units and falls short of the expected balance, is complemented with ad-hoc
(temporary) staff. As part of its 2021 reform, INEC increased the total number of polling units from 119,974 to 176,846. The Commission
engages these staff temporarily to make up for the shortfall in the permanent staff for election duty. Recently, INEC engaged about 1,265,227
ad-hoc staff for the 2023 elections (see Figure 1 and Table 2 for these statistics).
Election year № of ad-hoc
staff
№ of polling
units
2011 300,000 119,974
2015 750,000 119,974
2019 814,453 119,974
2023 1,265,227 176,846
Table 2. Summary of INEC ad-hoc staff and
polling units in Nigeria, 2011 – 2023
Source: Authors’ compilation with data from Jega (2012), The Punch (2019), PLAC (2021), Akinwale (2023)
Qeios, CC-BY 4.0 · Article, July 4, 2023
Qeios ID: FEUGJY · https://doi.org/10.32388/FEUGJY 9/21
The management of national (residential and National Assembly) and sub-national (governorship, state assembly, and FCT area council)
elections in Nigeria has exposed how INEC's poor staff and leadership recruitments are reflected in poor election preparation and
postponement. According to SBM Intelligence (2023), the financial costs of election postponement both for INEC and the Nigerian economy
are quite significant. Postponing any aspect of elections until a later time questions the credibility of the process. It also results in a staggering
loss arising from the suspension of economic activities and movement restrictions. The author estimated the cost of postponing the 2019
elections to be $2.23 billion because its primary and secondary effects cost Nigeria 2% of its $420 billion Gross Domestic Product.
Results for Independent National Electoral Commission’s finances
From 1999 to 2018, the INEC received ₦450 billion as election expenditures from Nigeria’s Federal Government.
5 The amount allocated for
elections steadily increased from ₦1.5 billion in 1999 to ₦305 billion in 2023, which amounted to ₦931.5 billion between 1999 and 2023 (see
Table 3 for specific details). Figure 2 shows how the government delays releasing election funds to INEC. YIAGA Africa (2020a) observes that
the cost of conducting elections in Nigeria was very exorbitant compared to an average of 35 percent turnout in the 2011, 2015, and 2019
elections, in which INEC wasted billions of Naira on producing a large number of unused ballots.
Election year Election budget (in bi llion
₦)
Cost per voter
(₦)
1999 1.5 26
2003 120* 995
2007 60.5 983
2011 139 1,893
2015 116.3 1,691
2019 189.2 2,249
2023 305 3,263
Total 931.5 11,100
Table 3. INEC Budgets for election management in Nigeria
between 1999 and 2023
Source: Authors’ computation with data from YIAGA Africa (2020a), International IDEA (2023), Lawal (2023), The Punch (2022),
Olugbondiyan (2006)
Note: *₦120b was proposed, but the amount government released is not in the public domain.
Qeios, CC-BY 4.0 · Article, July 4, 2023
Qeios ID: FEUGJY · https://doi.org/10.32388/FEUGJY 10/21
Figure 2. Government Delay in Releasing Election Funds to INEC
Source: YIAGA Africa (2020b)
For instance, INEC printed over 427.5 million ballot papers (of currency quality) in 2019 for 80 million registered voters in the six scheduled
elections: comprising FCT area councils, state houses of assembly, governorships, Federal House of Representatives, Senate, and
presidential. However, less than 30 million ballots were used in the six elections (YIAGA Africa, 2020a).
Results of the Independent National Electoral Commission’s operations
The Nigerian elections are associated with loss of lives, displacement of persons, and destruction of property. In specific terms, the 1998-9
transition elections claimed 80 lives, with 100 and 300 respectively recorded during the 2003 and 2007 elections (Mac-Leva, 2022). There is
this born-to-rule conviction or a feeling of entitlement that Nigerian leadership is an inheritance to northern Nigeria from the British colonial
masters at independence (see Northern Elders in Sahara Reporters, 2021). This partly explains why a presidential election that fails to
produce a northern candidate is considered fraudulent and is followed by a violent protest. The riots that erupted following the declaration of
the 2011 presidential election winner claimed 800 lives (in addition to 165 deaths recorded during the campaign and the elections). Within
three days of rioting, 65,000 people were displaced in 12 northern states of Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Jigawa, Kaduna, Kano,
Katsina, Niger, Sokoto, Yobe, and Zamfara (Human Rights Watch, 2011). The number of deaths decreased to 106 in the 2015 elections in
which a northern opposition presidential candidate won.
The insecurity that overshadow many parts of Nigeria worsened the incidents of electoral violence during the 2019 elections, There were
cases of unrestrained violence and reports of about 16 deaths across eight states which increased to 39 within 48 hours in the Nigerian states
of Borno, Bayelsa, Rivers, Yobe, Kogi, Ebonyi, Lagos, and Zamfara during the 2019 elections. Hired political thugs disrupted voting and set
Qeios, CC-BY 4.0 · Article, July 4, 2023
Qeios ID: FEUGJY · https://doi.org/10.32388/FEUGJY 11/21
election materials on fire in some places like Okota, Isolo, and Oshodi (NCS Situation Room, 2019). The electoral irregularities that
characterized the 2019 elections and the associated violence that followed the irregularities led to a loss of 756 Nigerians in which the
northern part of Nigeria maintained its lead as the hotbed of electoral violence with 570 deaths. There was a report of 137 deaths during the
recently held 2023 elections. Table 4 reveals these statistics.
S/№ Region Incident № of
death
1. North-central 23 111
2. North-east 16 146
3. North-west 20 172
4. South-east 7 14
5. South-south 59 120
6. South-west 36 63
7. North-west (Kajuru LGA) 2* 141
Total 163 756
Table 4. Summary of Violent Incidents and
Casualties in the 2019 Elections
Source: SBM Intelligence (2019)
Note: *The figure is not verified by SMB Intelligence, but was reported in other media sources.
Table 5 contains a progression of statistical data on the number of deaths arising from enduring lethal electoral irregularities that in Nigeria
between 1998-9 and 2023. The data are divided into three periods: pre-technology intervention (1999-2007), technology intervention (2011),
and post-technological intervention (2015-2023). The statistics indicate that, in 25 years, elections held in Nigeria were all violent, bloody, and
lethal with a total of 2,444 deaths: 480 between 1999 and 2007, 965 in 2011, and 999 between 2015 and 2023. The devices, which were
introduced to curb electoral malpractice that usually triggered violence, did not fundamentally address the concern. Thus, technology-
embedded elections held between 2015 and 223 also had features of irregularities, violence, and deaths
Before Technology Intervention, 1998 /9 –
2007 Technology Intervention in 2011 After Technology Intervention, 2015 –
2023
Election Year № of Death Election Year № of D eath Election Y ear № of Death
1998-9 80 2015 106
2003 100 X2011 965 X2019 756
2007 300 2023 137
TOTAL 480 965 999
Table 5. Trend in Bloody Nigerian Elections between 1998-9 and 2023
Source: Compiled by Researcher with data from Mac-Leva (2022), Bekoe (2011), Human Rights Watch (2007, 2011), SBM Intelligence
(2019)
Similarly, statistics in Table 6 show voter participation expressed in voter turnout in Nigeria between 1999 and 2023, which suggests a serious
consistent decline from 2003. This decline is linked to the consistent manifestation of irregularities in all elections organized by INEC. These
irregularities deflated public confidence in INEC management of Nigerian elections.
Qeios, CC-BY 4.0 · Article, July 4, 2023
Qeios ID: FEUGJY · https://doi.org/10.32388/FEUGJY 12/21
Election year Total registered voter s Total valid
votes Voter turnout (%)
1999 57,938,945 30,280,052 52.26
2003 60,823,022 42,018,735 69.08
2007 61,567,036 35,397,517 57.49
2011 73,528,040 39,469,484 53.68
2015 67,422,005 29,432,083 43.65
2019 82,344,107 28,614,190 34.75
2023 93,469,009 24,965,572 26.71
Table 6. Summarized trend in voter participation in Nigeria, 1999-2023
Source: International IDEA (2023)
Descriptive statistics
The statistics in Tables 5 and 6 are cross-tabulated to ascertain if the two categorical variables (government interference as a form of electoral
irregularities that leads to lethal violent elections and voter participation) are related. From the computations, the chi-square (calculated) is
574.3313, which is greater than its critical value (5.991), with df of 2, a p-value is < 0.00001, significant at p <.05. These results show the
suppressing effect of the lethal violent election on voter participation (i.e., a positive relationship) within the period under consideration. The
statistics are further presented in Figures 3 and 4 for a better graphic explanation.
Pre-TI period (1998/9-2007) TI period (2011) Post-TI period (2015-2023) R ow totals
Election-related death 480 (725.57) [83.11] 965 (259.17) [145.47] 999 (559.27) [345.75] 1544
Voter participation 107696304 (107696058.43) [0.00] 38468484 (38468289.83) [0.00] 83011845 (83012284.73) [0.00] 229176633
Column totals 107696784 38468549 83012844 229178177 (GT)
Table 7. Cross-tabulation statistics from data in Tables 5 and 6
Note: Pre-TI=pre-technology intervention, TI=technology intervention, post-TI=post-technology intervention, GT=grand totals.
Figure 3. Summary of descriptive statistics: Election-related death and voter turnout in Nigeria, 1999-2023
Source: Authors’ computation
Qeios, CC-BY 4.0 · Article, July 4, 2023
Qeios ID: FEUGJY · https://doi.org/10.32388/FEUGJY 13/21
Figure 4. Box plot of descriptive statistics for election-related death and voter turnout in Nigeria between 1998-9 and
2023
Source: Authors’ computation
Discussion
There are essential elements that form the basis for discussion of the prevailing results to buttress our argument. The succeeding sub-
sections are aligned with the study’s results.
Interference in INEC Membership Composition and Control of INEC Personnel in Nigeria
Nigeria operates a highly centralized federal system in which the president appropriates and wields enormous executive powers over the
entire affairs of the Federation. The president exercises these powers by appointing government officials and determining their remunerations.
In so doing and because institutions in Nigeria are relatively weak to check the excesses of some strong Nigerian politicians, the president
appoints and also influences how INEC principal officers discharge their statutory election functions.
Given the nature of its assignment on competing interests, the CFRN guarantees INEC independence to ensure its neutrality and impartiality.
The 1999 CFRN and the extant Electoral Act contain the underlying set of rules, principles, and laws that form the basis for the conduct of
elections in Nigeria (Adebiyi & Olowa, 2022). This set of rules, principles, and laws is provided to empower the INEC to dispassionately
deploy any working strategies through electoral reforms and the use of technologies for election management without giving undue advantage
to any candidate or political party. However, the INEC has not truly asserted this independence owing to government interference, which
emanates from the constitutional provision that empowers an interested party to appoint its principal officers and other staff. This castrates
and renders INEC impotent to guarantee credible elections in Nigeria.
Qeios, CC-BY 4.0 · Article, July 4, 2023
Qeios ID: FEUGJY · https://doi.org/10.32388/FEUGJY 14/21
Again, the appointment of these officers has shown how a president can abuse such constitutional power through a process that is strange to
the CFRN in favour of his kin and member of his political party (The Guardian, 2015; Akinwale, 2019; Ugbede, 2019; Iroanusi, 2020). The role
of these officers in Nigerian elections has become worrisome to many Nigerians (NCS Situation Room, 2019; Momah, 2016). The primary
reason for these abuses is because the president is an active participant in the electoral process coupled with challenging economic situations
that expose some Nigerians to tow a less dignified path. Furthermore, INEC is expected to meet the demands of the merit system under
public service governance within the constitutional framework of federal character in recruiting its election staff (permanent/ad-hoc).6
However, like recruitments in other government institutions in Nigeria, ethnoreligious favouritism, patronage, and submission of lists of
preferred candidates by politicians overshadow the aforementioned demands. The danger with this system is that it creates room to engage
inexperienced staff at the altar of the best available hands, which has implications for the recurring logistical problems and election
postponements in Nigeria.
Interestingly, many Nigerians welcomed the Electoral Act, of 2022, with lots of praise because it explicitly authorizes the use of electronic
technologies for voter registration, poll administration, and result management in Nigeria (FRN, 2022). But without prescient knowledge, the
Act remains an offshoot of the faulty 1999 CFRN, which recognizes INEC as an appendage of the Nigerian presidency. These legislative
documents subject INEC autonomy to presidential supervision through government institutions under the presidency. Thus, the INEC
leadership selection process at federal and state levels has charges of irregularities. The documents lack clear provisions for their effective
implementation, which exposes INEC to the perception of partiality and highlights systemic weaknesses that undermine voter participation
(EU EOM, 2023). This turns INEC into a willing tool in the manipulative hands of some Nigerian politicians, who employ suppressive
strategies to discourage the use of new technologies for election administration.
Politics bothers on who gets what, when, and how (Lasswell, 1936), and political behaviour within the context of politics is about the
authoritative allocation of values for society or the distribution of rewards in wealth, power, and status that the system may provide (Easton,
1953). The federal executive branch of the Nigerian government determines who gets what, when, and how, and authoritatively allocates
values in terms of who makes the list of the membership composition of the board of the Commission. In other words, INEC is a statutory
electoral body duly established by the highest law (the Constitution) in Nigeria, but the same law has placed some limitations on its ability to
function independently to provide a level playing ground for all Nigerians to participate in the electoral process.
Of the 21 valid interviews we recorded in this study, 19 respondents representing 90.5 percent of the total heave blame INEC's poor
performance on the appointment of its key officers by the president. Their views suggest that the president should not appoint INEC key
officers. Two respondents (9.5%) believe that the problem is not about who appoints but about wrongdoing having a commensurate
consequence. One of the latter respondents further maintains that if any officer should be prosecuted according to law for electoral
malfeasance, it will serve as a deterrent to future violators of electoral laws. In this country, such violators seem to be celebrated and that is
the major problem with Nigerian elections (Interview S/№ 4).
The appointment of INEC key officers plays a catalytic role in the policy direction of INEC in terms of how and what strategies (like technology
use) to adopt for election management. Most Nigerian politicians are fraudulent and will not support INEC to implement an anti-rigging policy,
which will get them out of the game (Interview S/№ 12). Furthermore, this appointment, to a large extent, has taken an ethnoreligious
dimension, which undermines meritocracy and leads to poor performance of the officers in implementing a policy that will ensure credible
elections in the country (Interview S/№ 1).
Interference in INEC Finances and Financial Dependence on Government
Apart from the human element in any organization, finance is another important aspect. It is regarded as an organizational life wire (Ogunna,
1999; Ezeani, 2006). Bertrand Russell advanced the argument that, in everything, power lies with those who control finance, not with those
who know the matter upon which the money is to be spent. The recruitment, remuneration, training, and motivation of election staff for
Qeios, CC-BY 4.0 · Article, July 4, 2023
Qeios ID: FEUGJY · https://doi.org/10.32388/FEUGJY 15/21
effective performance, as well as procurement and deployment of new technologies to enhance its operations, require a huge amount of
money.
Regrettably, this strategic organizational asset (INEC finances) is under the supervisory purview of the Nigerian presidency. Prior to the
enactment of the Electoral Act, of 2022, elections were governed by such legal instruments as the CFRN of 1999 and the Electoral Acts of
2002, 2006, and 2010.7 During these periods, funds disbursement for election management was a major challenge that led to substantial poor
reparation of elections. For instance, voter registration was delayed in 2003 and 2007 because of the delayed fund disbursement (Akinduro,
2011). In October 2006, several INEC checks were not honored because the Budget Monitoring and Price Unit within the Office of the
President did not clear INEC payments for critical electoral materials (National Democratic Institute, 2008). During the 2019 election season,
the INEC budget for the 2019 elections was ₦189,007,272,393. Regrettably, 86 days before the elections on November 22, 2018, the Federal
Government partly released ₦143,512,529,455, which represented 76 percent of the total sum. On December 21, 2018, 57 days prior to the
elections, the outstanding balance of ₦45,495,012,938 was released (see Figure 3). This does not augur well for election planning and
preparation.
Additionally, the amended Electoral Act of 2010 required the Commission to submit its financial year estimate of expenditure and income to
the Ministry of Finance. In Section 5(1) and (2), the Act directed the Commission to keep proper accounts, which must be audited by the
Auditor General of the Federation (FRN, 2010). This Act was repealed and replaced with the Electoral Act, of 2022, which provided for early
release of INEC funds, but the power to release these funds still resides with the President (FRN, 2023). A situation where the government
delays or engages in the piecemeal release of funds to INEC vitiates the very essence of INEC autonomy makes it susceptible to political
influence and undermines its ability to guarantee credible elections.
Interference in INEC Operations and Manipulation of the Electoral Process
Two essential components that are very crucial to the operations of any modern organization are human and financial elements, and whoever
controls these elements invariably is in firm control of the organization and its operations. Because INEC is not in firm control of its human and
financial elements as it is currently constituted, its efforts to organize credible elections have not achieved appreciable results, measured by
the unending incidence of irregularities that embody elections in Nigeria. The use of biometric devices to provide the opportunity for voters to
determine their elected leaders through the ballots is sabotaged at the level of implementation by those who control the INEC. Although INEC
policy implementation has a tint of decentralization at state and local levels, policymaking by INEC follows the centralized model. This is
because the operations of INEC state and local government offices strictly follow the directives from the central office (CFRN, 1999; Akinduro,
2011).
We maintain that INEC and the various reform measures it has initiated represent a top-down approach to the plethora of electoral problems
bedeviling Nigeria without the requisite buy-in from the people. In modern administrative practice, the one-single approach has not
demonstrated efficiency and effectiveness in optimally addressing complex issues without buy-ins from other relevant stakeholders. Following
this absence of a participatory framework in which stakeholder contributions are not factored into INEC policy turnout, the stakeholder
operations during elections usually run at cross purposes with the INEC implementation process. Even when INEC uses its Information and
Voter Education Committee to mobilize the people through its voter sensitization programmes, the reality during the implementation stage
deviates from the policy objectives and information acquired through the programmes. Thus, Mthethwa (2012) asserts that it is an entrenched
practice in administration that when people are allowed to freely participate in policymaking and their views form part of the policies, they will
also ensure that the policy objectives come to fruition during the implementation stage. This provides an insight into why there are always
issues with INEC in terms of policy implementation during elections.
Thus, one can convincingly argue that INEC’s claims of reforms have mainly served the purpose of belongingness and receiving assistance
from development partners as frequent failures to dispassionately implement its reform objectives have demonstrated. Additionally,
Qeios, CC-BY 4.0 · Article, July 4, 2023
Qeios ID: FEUGJY · https://doi.org/10.32388/FEUGJY 16/21
considering election preparation, the environment of the election period is one of intense politicking and heightened tension (Abada et al.,
2023), and the deployment of men (both poll officials and security personnel) and materials are done in a fashion akin to a war situation
(Mbah, Nwangwu & Ugwu, 2019). The environment also depicts an atmosphere of poor democratic orientation on the side of Nigerian
politicians who rarely believe in the dual nature of electoral contests: every election inevitably produces either a winner or a loser. This
situation is also exacerbated by the notion that access to power guarantees access to state resources (Onuoha, 2008), and the lucrative
benefits and privileges attached to public offices in the country (Abada et al., 2023).
Thus, those who control the Nigerian government are in a firm grip on the INEC and influence its operations to increase their odds of victory in
any electoral contests. This depicts why Nigerian elections are undermined by incidences of violent electoral irregularities with their attendant
loss of lives and property (see Angerbrandt, 2018; Onapajo, 2014). Elections held in this situation cannot be free and fair and will not wear the
hallowed toga of credibility (see Onuoha et al., 2020; Merloe, 2008). Ideally, elections are supposed to be a peaceful contest among political
actors and their outcomes will either produce winners or losers. However, in the case of Nigeria, elections have become a must-win contest.
They have also become bloody, violent, and lethal. The biometric devices introduced to address election-related issues by reducing human
interface have turned out to facilitate them on account of government interference in biometric policy implementation, thereby making every
election season in Nigeria a life-taking period.
Conclusion
Many African countries that embraced multiparty electoral democracy in the 1990s are today slipping off the democratic coast in geometric
progression with illiberal features defining their democracies due to politics of self-interest against politics of public service. Thus, this study is
an empirical contribution to this unending issue within the context of controlled INEC independence occasioned by government interference in
INEC membership composition, finances, and operations that result in lethal electoral irregularities in Nigeria. By its nomenclature and
constitutional recognition as a statutory federal body, INEC conveys the notion of independence. By this, INEC is expected to exercise its
independence in determining functional strategies to improve the quality of Nigerian elections.
But the reality is that INEC independence exists in the attachment of “independent” to its name. It has not truly demonstrated its
independence in providing a level playing ground for parties and their candidates seeking to gain power through elections. it has not also
ensured that all eligible Nigerian voters have the opportunity to cast their ballots for any candidates of their choice and seamlessly allowed all
participants (parties, candidates, voters, and observers) to be involved in the electoral process. The 1999 CFRN on which basis INEC derives
the legal impetus for its existence, contains various crisis-ridden and ambiguous provisions, which Nigerian politicians leverage to hold it
hostage and interfere in its electoral operations.
The fact that Nigeria operates a multiparty competitive electoral system predisposes the need for INEC to maintain a high level of
independence driven by people of high moral standards to ensure that election outcomes are a reflection of the choices made by the
electorate through the ballots. Today, many Nigerians have serious misgivings about Nigerian elections regarding the constitutional provision
which empowers the president to appoint principal officers of the INEC. This constitutional INEC design delinks the institutional INEC
independence from its operational independence, which existence is determined by the government. With this design, elections in Nigeria
have charges of partial implementation of electoral rules, result alterations, snatching of election materials, arrest and kidnapping of poll staff,
manipulation of the electoral process, vote buying, and violent disruption (Electoral Reform Committee, 2008; Olaniyan, 2020).
The various INEC intervention programmes such as bottom-up and top-down election sequences, reliance on academia, legislative reforms,
and introduction of new technologies are undermined by government interference.8 The study queries the voter turnouts because the basis
(voter register) on which it is measured is questionable. Cases of underage voters, double registrations, and infiltration with names of dead
people and foreigners surround the register in Nigeria (Vanguard, 2022; NCS Situation Room, 2015; EU EOM, 2015). Again, INEC does not
have any database to identify Nigerians with party affiliation to enable it to ascertain the affiliation status of its ad-hoc staff before their
Qeios, CC-BY 4.0 · Article, July 4, 2023
Qeios ID: FEUGJY · https://doi.org/10.32388/FEUGJY 17/21
engagement in election management. In the absence of this database, one can conveniently make a logical case that the retinue of INEC ad-
hoc staff is mostly party loyalists who can subtly operate within the system to help politicians to influence the electoral process, determine its
outcomes, jeopardize the credibility of the process, and shrinks the public confidence to stunning lows.
These findings underscore the need for voter-driven electoral reforms since government-determined ones have not addressed the
fundamental problems with the electoral system in Nigeria. Instructively, this study does not claim to offer a one-swoop explanation of the
myriad of electoral problems facing democratic operations in developing countries by exposing the enduring systemic interference in election
management in Nigeria. It leaves other plausible explanations in the domain of further studies. Such studies should explore other factors and
explain why the various legislative reforms in Nigeria as elsewhere have failed to address the fundamental problems relating to EMB’s
operational independence, logistics arrangements, and/or budgeting challenges.
Footnotes
1 The literature includes van Baalen, 2023; Gutiérrez-Romero & LeBas, 2020; Klaus, 2020; Onuoha et al., 2020.
2 Recent flawed elections in Africa include Nigeria’s 2023 presidential election with claims of altered results and voter suppression and Sierra
Leone’s 2023 presidential election in which a winner is declared amid ‘statistical inconsistencies’ and fraud (Nwonwu, Mwai & Igonikon, 2023;
Reuters, 2023).
3 The card is a chip-embedded biometric device that contains the bio-data of every eligible Nigerian voter.
4 See Sections 14(3) and Section 171(5) of the CFRN.
5 The figure is derived from Adetutu Balogun’s Twitter Handle: https://twitter.com/Tutsy22/status/1100635830534717443.
6 We maintain that merit and quota system has its problem and contradiction.
7 The Electoral Act of 2010 was amended in 2015.
8 The bottom-up election sequence is the order of elections in which state elections precede NASS polls and ends with the presidential
election. The 1998-9 transition elections began with local government elections, followed by state (governorship and state assembly)
elections, and ended with national (NASS and presidential) elections. The same sequence was followed in the 2003 elections. By this, local
government elections were ceded to independent state electoral commissions of the 36 Nigerian states. Its opposite is a top-down sequence.
References
Abada, I.M., Mbah, P.O., Obiagu, U.C., Udeh, C.O., Omeh, P.H., Odey, C.O., and Chukwu, C.Q. (2023). Winner-takes-all Majoritarian
System and Irregularities in Six Election Cycles in Nigeria, 1999 – 2019. Qeios Preprint. doi:10.32388/PQ68SB.
Angerbrandt, H. (2018). Deadly elections: Post-election violence in Nigeria. Journal of Modern African Studies, 56(1), 143–167.
Anku, Amaka. (2022). Nigeria’s unfulfilled promise: How fear and caution hinder Africa’s giant. Foreign Affairs.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/nigeria/nigerias-unfulfilled-promise
Araneta, Gemma C. (2022). USA, bastion of democracy. Manila Bulletin. https://mb.com.ph/2022/8/25/usa-bastion-of-democracy
Ashindorbe, K. (2018). Electoral violence and the challenge of democratic consolidation in Nigeria. India Quarterly: A Journal of
International Affairs, 74(1), 1–14.
Bell, D.A., Brown, D., Jayasuriya, K., and Jones, D.M. (1995). Towards illiberal democracy in Pacific Asia. London Palgrave Macmillan.
Birch, S., Daxecker, U. and Höglund, K. (2020). Electoral violence: An introduction. Journal of Peace Research, 57(1), 3–14.
Qeios, CC-BY 4.0 · Article, July 4, 2023
Qeios ID: FEUGJY · https://doi.org/10.32388/FEUGJY 18/21
Bonet, Lluis and Zamorano, M.M. (2021). Cultural policies in illiberal democracies: A conceptual framework based on the Polish and
Hungarian governing experiences. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 27(5), 559-573.
Bratton, M. (2008). Vote buying and violence in Nigerian election campaigns. Electoral Studies, 27(4), 621–632.
Cheeseman, Nic. (2021). Africa’s growing criminalization of the opposition. The Africa Report.
https://www.theafricareport.com/59333/africas-growing-criminalization-of-the-opposition/
Christie, Kenneth (1998). Illiberal democracy, modernisation and Southeast Asia. Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory (91),
102-118.
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. (1999). The Constitution, 1999 (as amended). Abuja: Government Printers.
De Freytas-Tamura, K. (2017). Kenya Supreme Court nullifies presidential election. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/01/world/africa/kenya-election-kenyatta-odinga.html
DeVotta, Neil (2010). From civil war to soft authoritarianism: Sri Lanka in comparative perspective. Global Change, Peace & Security,
22(3), 331-343.
Diamond, L.J. and Plattner, M.F. (1999). Democratization in Africa. JHU Press.
Diamond, Larry (2002). Assessing the quality of democracy. Journal of Democracy, 13(2), 51-65.
Dill, David. (2016). Why online voting is a danger to democracy. Via Ortega, Stanford: Stanford Engineering Publications.
Electoral Commission of Zambia. (2016). The Electoral Commission of Zambia Act, 2016. https://www.elections.org.zm/verc/files/Electoral-
Process-Act-No.-35-2016.pdf
EU Election Observation Mission. (2023). Nigeria 2023 general elections: Final report. Abuja: Author.
Federal Republic of Nigeria. (2002). Electoral Act, 2002. Abuja: Government Printers.
Federal Republic of Nigeria. (2006). Electoral Act, 2006. Abuja: Government printers.
Federal Republic of Nigeria. (2010). Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended). Abuja: Government printers.
Federal Republic of Nigeria. (2010). Electoral Act, 2010. Abuja: Government printers.
Federal Republic of Nigeria. (2023). Electoral Act, 2023. Abuja: Government Printers.
Fjelde, H. and Höglund, K. (2016), Electoral institutions and electoral violence in sub-Saharan Africa. British Journal of Political Science
46(2), 297–320.
Gibson, C.C. (2002). Of waves and ripples: Democracy and political change in Africa in the 1990s. Annual Review of Political Science, 5,
201-221.
Golder, Matt and Wantcheko, Leonard. (2004). Africa: Dictatorial and democratic electoral systems since 1946. In Josep Colomer (ed.),
Handbook of electoral system design (pp. 1-24). London: Palgrave.
Goldsmith, A.A. (2015). Elections and civil violence in new multiparty regimes: Evidence from Africa. Journal of Peace Research, 52(5),
607-621.
Gruenbaum, Oren. (2020). Malawi election observers criticized. The Round Table.
https://www.commonwealthroundtable.co.uk/commonwealth/africa/malawi/malawi-election-observers-criticised/
Gutiérrez-Romero, R., and LeBas, A. (2020). Does electoral violence affect vote choice and willingness to vote? Conjoint analysis of a
vignette experiment. Journal of Peace Research, 57(1), 77–92.
Harish, S.P., and Toha, Rish. (2017). A new typology of electoral violence: Insights from Indonesia. Terrorism and Political Violence, 31(4),
687-711.
Hasen, R.L. (2012). The voting wars: From Florida 2000 to the next election meltdown. New Haven, CT: YU Press.
Human Rights Watch. (2004). Nigeria's 2003 elections: The unacknowledged violence. https://www.hrw.org/report/2004/06/01/nigerias-
2003-elections/unacknowledged-violence
Human Rights Watch. (2011). Nigeria: Post-election violence killed 800. https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/05/16/nigeria-post-election-
violence-killed-800
Huntington, S.P. (1991). The third wave: Democratization in the late twentieth century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Qeios, CC-BY 4.0 · Article, July 4, 2023
Qeios ID: FEUGJY · https://doi.org/10.32388/FEUGJY 19/21
Independent National Electoral Commission. (2015a). Questions and answers on card readers. https://guardian.ng/politics/questions-and-
answers-on-card-readers/
Independent National Electoral Commission. (2015b). INEC guidelines and regulations for the conduct of 2015 general elections. Abuja:
Author.
Independent National Electoral Commission. (2019). Regulations and guidelines for the conduct of elections. Abuja: Author.
International IDEA. (2023). Voter turnout by country: Africa. Stockholm, Sweden: Author. https://www.idea.int/data-tools/continent-
view/Africa/40?st=pre#rep
Iweala, Uzodinma. (2022). Nigeria’s second independence: Why the giant of Africa needs to start over. Foreign Affairs.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/africa/2022-06-21/nigeria-second-independence
Kousser, Thad. (2023). What’s behind American distrust in elections? UC San Diego: UCIGCC.
Lawal, Opeyemi. (2023). From N1.5b to N305b. How Cost of Nigerian Elections Rose in 24 Years. FIJ Publications.
https://fij.ng/article/from-n1-5b-to-n305b-how-cost-of-nigerian-elections-rose-in-24-years/
Mbah, P.O., Nwangwu, C. and Ugwu, S.C. (2019). Contentious elections, political exclusion, and challenges of national integration in
Nigeria. Cogent Social Sciences 5.1: 1-22.
Minnite, L.C. (2010). The myth of voter fraud. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press;
Mounk, Yascha (2020). The people vs. democracy - Why our freedom is in danger and how to save it. Harvard University Press
National Democratic Institute. (2007). Final NDI report on Nigeria’s 2007 elections. Abuja: Author.
Nigeria Civil Society Situation Room. (2015a). Why permanent voters card & card readers should matter to voters. Abuja: Author.
Nigeria Civil Society Situation Room. (2015b). Report on Nigeria’s 2015 general elections. Abuja: Author.
Nigeria Civil Society Situation Room. (2019). Report of Nigeria’s 2019 general elections. Abuja: Author.
Norris, Pippa. (2014). Why electoral integrity matters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nwangwu, C., Onah, V.C. and Otu, O.A. 2018, Elixir of electoral fraud: The impact of digital technology on the 2015 general elections in
Nigeria.” Cogent Social Sciences, (4), 2-19.
Nwonwu, C., Mwai, P., & Igonikon, K. (2023). Nigeria election: The mystery of the altered results in disputed poll. BBC.
https://www.bbc.com/news/65163713
Nyyssönen, Heino and Metsälä, Jussi (2020). Liberal democracy and its current illiberal critique: The emperor's new clothes? Europe-Asia
Studies, 73(2), 273-290.
Obiagu, U.C., Abada, I.M., Mbah, P.O., Ezirim, G.E., Omeh, P.H., Udeh, C.O. (2022). The limiting effects of inconclusive gubernatorial
elections towards the democratic consolidation of the Nigerian state. The African Review, 1-34.
Obiagu, U.C., Udeji-Okpalaku, C.O., & Udeh, C.O. (2021). The undermining consequences of inconclusive elections on democratic
consolidation in Africa: Interrogating Nigerian Elections, 2011-2019. African Journal of Democracy and Election Research, 1(2), 7-40.
Olaniyan, A. 2020. Election sophistication and the changing contours of vote buying in Nigeria’s 2019 general elections. The Round Table,
109(4), 386-395.
Olugbondiyan, Kola. (2006). Nigeria: 2007: INEC shops for N60.5bn. https://allafrica.com/stories/200601260179.html
Onapajo, H. and Babalola, D. (2020). Nigeria’s 2019 general elections – a shattered hope? The Round Table, 109(4), 363–367.
Onuoha, F.C., Okafor, J.C., Ojewale, O., and Okoro, C. 2020. Militarisation of the 2019 general elections and electoral integrity in Nigeria,
The Round Table, 109(4), 406-418.
Onuoha, J. (2008). Beyond diplomacy: Contemporary issues in international relations. Nsukka: Great AP Express.
Pildes, R.H. (2022). Election law in an age of distrust. Stanford Law Review, 74. https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/election-law-in-
an-age-of-distrust/
Plattner, M.F. (2019). Illiberal democracy and the struggle on the right. Journal of Democracy, 30(1), 5-19.
Reuters. (2023). Sierra Leone election observers flag ‘statistical inconsistencies’. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/30/africa/sierra-
leone-polls-controversy-intl/index.html
Qeios, CC-BY 4.0 · Article, July 4, 2023
Qeios ID: FEUGJY · https://doi.org/10.32388/FEUGJY 20/21
Russell, B. (2004[1928]). Sceptical essays. New York: Routledge.
Sahara Reporters. (2021). North inherited Nigeria’s leadership, won’t be intimidated to leave power in 2023 – Northern Elders. Sahara
Reporters. https://saharareporters.com/2021/09/20/north-inherited-nigeria%E2%80%99s-leadership-wont-be-intimidated-leave-power-
2023-%E2%80%93northern
Sajó, András. (2021). Ruling by cheating: Governance in illiberal democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
SBM Intelligence. (2019). Election violence in numbers. https://www.sbmintel.com/2019/03/election-violence-in-numbers/
Schedler, Andreas (2006). Electoral authoritarianism: The dynamics of unfree competition. Lynne Rienner Publishers
Schraeder, P.J. (1995). Understanding the “third wave” of democratization in Africa. The Journal of Politics, 57(4), 1160-1168.
Self, Darin (2022). Illiberal democracies and democratic backsliding. doi:10.1093/OBO/9780199756223-0352.
https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780199756223/obo-9780199756223-0352.xml
Solijonov, A. (2016). Voter turnout trends around the world. Stockholm, Sweden:
Staniland, P. (2014). Violence and democracy. Comparative Politics, 47(1), 99-118.
Sule, S. & Sambo, U. (2019). The 2019 general election and the politics of inconclusive election in Nigeria: A review of the affected states.
Khazanah Sosial, 2(3), 105–124.
The Ghana Constitution. (1992). Ghana’s Constitution of 1992 with amendments through 1996. Accra: Constitute Project.
The Zambian Constitution. (1991). Constitution of Zambian (amended by Act № 2 of 2016).
https://www.parliament.gov.zm/sites/default/files/documents/amendment_act/Constitution%20of%20Zambia%20%20(Amendment),%202016-
Act%20No.%202_0.pdf
Wagrandl, Ulrich. (2021). A theory of illiberal democracy. Routledge Handbook of Illiberalism. Routledge.
Wang, T.A. (2012). The politics of voter suppression: Defending and expanding Americans’ right to vote. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
YIAGA Africa. (2020a). INEC spends N444.5bn on three national elections with 35% turnout. Abuja: Author.
YIAGA Africa. (2020b). Why securing INEC financial independence is important? Abuja: Author.
Zakaria, Fareed. (1997). The rise of illiberal democracy. Foreign Affairs, 76, 22.
Qeios, CC-BY 4.0 · Article, July 4, 2023
Qeios ID: FEUGJY · https://doi.org/10.32388/FEUGJY 21/21
