The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has promised equal treatment for parties and candidates in the 2027 elections, as its handling of the voters’ register draws scrutiny over compliance with electoral law.
Chairman Professor Joash Amupitan said the commission would base its decisions on the 1999 Constitution, the Electoral Act 2026, its regulations and guidelines, and binding court decisions. He stressed that the commission had no discretion to disregard those requirements.
According to Arise News, Amupitan made the commitment in an address delivered on his behalf by Imo State Resident Electoral Commissioner Chukwuemeka Ibeziakor at a public lecture in Owerri. The event examined democratic governance and electoral credibility.
The assurance comes as INEC faces questions about public access to the preliminary voters’ register, which enables citizens to check their details and challenge omissions or questionable entries before the commission finalises the document.
INEC national commissioner Mohammed Haruna told The PUNCH that the commission had displayed the register at wards but had not uploaded it to its official website. His response confirmed the distinction between the physical exercise and the online publication that critics have demanded.
Under Section 19(1) of the Electoral Act 2026, INEC must, no later than 90 days before a general election, designate a seven-day period for public scrutiny of the register. The provision requires publication or display at registration areas and on the commission’s website or another website it establishes for that purpose.
The same section provides for complaints about missing names, necessary corrections and objections to the inclusion of people who do not qualify for registration, including deceased persons.
Prime 9ja Online reports that these questions formed part of an Arise News studio discussion in which analyst Dayo Sobowale defended giving INEC an opportunity to demonstrate that it could conduct a credible election.
Sobowale argued that dissatisfaction with previous elections should not, by itself, determine expectations of the forthcoming polls. He said the commission’s central responsibility remained delivering a free and fair contest, and maintained that impartial conduct served its own institutional interests.
“You cannot use the past to eliminate the prospect of better performance in the future.”
The programme’s presenters challenged that position, recalling disputes surrounding the 2023 elections and the competing interpretations of rules governing the transmission of results. They questioned whether another declaration of neutrality could reassure voters without evidence that the commission had addressed earlier concerns.
Sobowale maintained that the current commission should have the opportunity to fulfil its undertaking. He rejected the suggestion that doubts about INEC’s credibility necessarily established that it would fail in 2027.
“I said we must give them the benefit of doubt,” he said.
The presenters argued that INEC needed to earn public confidence through its performance. Their questions distinguished between hoping for a credible election and assessing whether the commission’s preparations justified that confidence.
Sobowale acknowledged the importance of performance but resisted reaching a negative conclusion before the election. He said the commission should discharge its responsibilities honestly and transparently, with a level playing field for contestants.
The discussion also addressed proposals for political parties to compile their own figures amid concerns about delays in official collation and the display of results. Asked about that distrust, Sobowale reiterated INEC’s constitutional responsibility for conducting elections and urged confidence in its ability to carry out the assignment.
The disagreement became more specific when the presenters raised the voters’ register. They questioned whether the absence of the document from INEC’s website already undermined the chairman’s promise to follow the law.
Sobowale disputed the allegation that the commission had violated its obligations, saying it should have an opportunity to explain its position. He expressed confidence that INEC would eventually publish the register online.
The presenters, however, stressed that their concern involved a legal timetable for public access to the register, rather than the distribution of sensitive election materials. They pointed out that displaying the document at wards did not answer the separate question about its availability on the website.
Beyond that dispute, Sobowale identified the movement of election materials across the country as a major practical concern. He said he was particularly worried about arrangements close to polling day, when INEC must deliver materials to locations across Nigeria.
He expressed hope that difficulties experienced during previous elections would not recur.
“I pray what we saw last time will not happen,” he said.
Sobowale said the commission needed to protect ballots, ensure that materials reached their intended destinations and upload results as required. He linked those responsibilities to the transparency and credibility Nigerians expected from the electoral process.
He also drew comparisons with elections abroad, arguing that the credibility of an electoral system mattered to whether contestants accepted an outcome. His broader position was that the conduct of the election would provide the basis for judging INEC’s assurances.
In his address, Amupitan also said responsibility for credible elections extended to political parties. He urged them to strengthen internal democracy, observe legal deadlines and resolve grievances through lawful channels.
The chairman argued that transparent nominations and reliable party records could reduce disputes before polling, while failures within parties could complicate preparations. He said INEC would apply legal standards to the records and circumstances before it, even where particular interests found the resulting decisions inconvenient.
For Sobowale, the significance of INEC’s undertaking ultimately lay in whether Nigerians could exercise their voting rights through a credible contest.
“Without a free and fair election, our democracy is a sham.”