Dont read if you are lazy in reading!!! Diran Ajayi wrote: INEC as the instrument of the northern power bloc to perpetually dominate Nigeria political calculations in 2015 and beyond. (Vanguard). With the latest daylight political roberry happening under the watch of oga Jonah, how feasible is his 2nd term bid in February, 2015 given the position of the north that without rescuing over 200 Chibok missing girls, no reelection support from the north? *Commission insists on lopsided PUs allocation *Rigging from source set to be order of the day Last Sunday, this paper published the first part of the gambit the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, led by Professor Attahiru Jega, got itself into. And whereas the Commission would have been expected to attempt to address the concerns raised by the report, it chose to embark on a voyage of half-truths and deception in an advertorial explaining, rather vainly, ‘Why INEC is creating new Polling Units, PUs”. In this second part, Sunday Vanguard raises more posers for the Commission regarding the inappropriateness of allocating more PUs to the North, an area where it has weeded Ghost Voters in their millions. This exclusive report digs deeper into the dangerous game of political conspiracy that has been on at INEC and which we have carefully followed in the last two years. The findings are mind- boggling, as there are cogent and verifiable reasons to suggest that the ever acrimonious North/South dichotomy may have become a guiding principle of administrative philosophy at INEC, a philosophy that is now threatening to affect the hard-earned integrity of Jega. Therefore, how this academic of international repute would get himself out of this bind should be of concern to the public, especially members of the National Assembly, who have the responsibility to oversee activities at INEC – a form of oversight. By JIDE AJANI Last week: The first part of this report exposed the lopsidedness in the allocation of PUs, 30,000 in all, across the nation. Yet, in a curious twist of logic, the cleaning of the Voter Register, VR, which has seen many states in the northern part of Nigeria lose ‘GHOST VOTERS’ in their millions, was allocated a whopping 21,615 (twenty one thousand, six hundred and fifteen) PUs, as against a meagerly 8,412 (eight thousand, four hundred and twelve) for the South. This is a second part which further exposes the under-belly of the Commission in this dangerous game. FEBRUARY, 2015 Rigging from source: That is the only thing the Commission would likely encourage. With the allocation of its 150,000 Polling Units, PUs, across the country, the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, may have wittingly or unwittingly set the stage for a paradigm of rigging from source because its latest addition of 30,000 PUs, preponderantly shared in favour of the North, has the potential to corrupt the process. The simple reason is that by one strange logic, INEC, which has employed the Authentic Automated Finger Identification System, AAFIS, to weed off Ghost Voters (which largely affected the North much more than the South), has gone ahead to allocate more PUs to the selfsame North than the South. In practice, what this means is that there are far less prospective voters in the North than the South Therefore, when you allocate election materials to areas with less number of people but with more PUs, a likely collusion between electoral officers and politicians would, no doubt, return the votes in favour of whoever is being worked for. INEC may argue and attempt to pour cold water on this assertion, but the facts on ground would on their own pooh- pooh whatever defence INEC attempts to put up for the justification of what it is insisting on foisting on Nigerians. For the general elections of 2015, the dangerous game INEC is determined to play, would be much more manifest in the light of some salient issues that the Commission appears to be tongue-tied to answer. INEC’s UNHELPFUL EXPLANATION FOR CREATING PUs And whereas INEC’s response to an issue raised about the allocation of PUs merely addressed the need to relocate wrongly located PUs, it only succeeded in further exposing its illogical engagement. But INEC’s reasoning falls flat on the face of logic. The question should be asked: Which procedural sequence is logical in this scenario: Relocation of the wrongly located PUs before registration or registration at wrongly located centers before relocation? INEC chose the latter sequence as logical, a logic that is on its head. Although INEC rightly pointed out that there have been population growth and demographic shift in Nigeria since 1996, it must be categorically stated that the nature, structure and composition of population growth and the degree and direction of demographic shifts globally are data that the population commission is statutorily established to compile and definitely not an electoral body. INEC’s duty is that of compiling only persons who are of 18 years who are eligible registrable voters according to Section 12 of the Electoral Act and not all segments of the population. Therefore, it is only on this basis that PUs are created to serve a population of eligible voters who have registered, not the entire population and definitely not even the population of registrable. The latter point is because not all eligible citizens would register since it is not compulsory. INEC is, therefore, wrong for talking of total population instead of eligible citizens. This is more so because INEC cannot predict voter distribution in any population circle or in any demographic pattern because voter population pattern is usually compiled and verified data devoid of any subjective prediction. INEC is maintaining that the valid baseline for the creation of PUs is the post-Advance Automatic Finger Identification System, AAFIS, insisting that those who were not registered would re-present themselves. But stemming from the above, it is, therefore, egregious and grossly misleading for INEC to use what it calls “Post-AFIS population of registered voters as a valid baseline for the creation of Polling Units” simply on the assumption that those who failed the Business-Rule will re-present themselves for registration. But these beggar some questions, questions which INEC must answer before taking Nigerians on this ride: *What is the total number of those who failed the “post- business rule”? *Have they all been re-registered? *How many are they? *What is the total number of those who have re-presented themselves for re-registration in the 10 states of the first phase of the AAFIS who have been presented with Permanent Voter Card, PVC, and who should be catered for in creating these PUs? *What is the total number of those who re-presented themselves for the just concluded 20th-25th second phase of registration in the 12 states where many were not registered and called for extension that was not granted? That is not all. There are many more issues viz: *What would be the yardstick to determine the number of those who will re-present themselves in the 12 other states including Lagos and even Kano that are yet to undergo this exercise yet PUs have been proposed to be created when there are no data ? *Has INEC carried out the running of AFIS in the just concluded 12 states and the earlier 10 states? *Would it not have been better and the current controversies of genuine fear of manipulation and the resurgence of North/ South syndrome avoided completely if INEC waited for the completion of the entire exercise and the true eligible voters that scaled through the “post-business rule” and thus valid voter population before the creation of PUs? *Until the above questions and valid observations are addressed, what INEC says of the “Post-Business rule figures” should remain the only verified voter population on the basis of which creation of PUs should be done – and that is if necessary. CARD READER CONUNDRUM INEC’s argument of an expected huge investment in smart card readers, should it decide to adopt voting points rather than additional polling units, may turn out to be a tragedy for some very important reasons: INEC’s position is that there are about 250,000 voting points in multiples of 300 voters and this will require about the same 250,000 smart card readers. But if it creates 150,000 PUs in multiples of 500, it will require only 150,000 smart card readers. However, the downside to this is that INEC is deliberately using the 73 million figures of the 2011 register that it said had reduced after it conducted AAFIS. The logical question is why use this figure again? A MEETING AND FINGER-POINTING Again, the meeting was stormy. Unlike the earlier meeting of Tuesday, August 12, 2014, where the creation of additional 30,000 new PUs was tabled, the meeting of last Wednesday, August 27, 2014, dwelt more on damage limitation. The similarity in both meetings can be located in the seemingly stormy nature of the discussions. Sunday Vanguard was told that though INEC Chairman, Professor Attahiru Jega, was not in town, the commissioners still went ahead with the meeting. Firstly, discussions centered on the veracity of the claims made by this paper. It then veered into the arena of the motif. It was learnt that some of the commissioners were particularly disturbed at the insinuation that a tar of Northern agenda was being splashed on the Commission. Yet, a few others, in a manner suggestive of a disclaimer, pointed accusing fingers. It was learnt that another meeting would be held once Jega returns. ZONAL ALLOCATION OF PUs North West -7, 906 North East – 5, 291 North Central – 6,318 FCT - 1,120 South West – 4,160 South South – 3,087 South East - 1,167 Approximately, with a margin of error of not more than 1000, INEC would still need to explain why the North West has an allocation of close to 8,000 PUs, which is almost the entire number of PUs allocated to the entire South.
Posted on: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 07:05:26 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015