AN ADDRESS AT A PRESS CONFERENCE ON THE
NEW POLLING UNITS STRUCRTURE BY HON.
CHAIRMAN, INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL
COMMISSION (INEC), PROFESSOR ATTAHIRU M.
JEGA, OFR, ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10,
2014.
Introduction
In recent times, the Independent National Electoral
Commission (INEC) has come under unjustified
criticism from certain interests over its decision to
sanitise the Polling Units (PUs) structure ahead of
the 2015 general elections. The criticism has
centred largely on an alleged conspiracy theory, to
namely: that the Commission has done a
disproportional distribution of the polling units
across Nigeria under the new arrangement, which
is aimed at foisting the dominance of one section
of the country over the others for political
advantage. It is quite understandable, albeit
regrettable that, given the low level of public trust
in governance institutions in our clime, and the
acrimony that attends to the "distribution" or
"allocation'" of virtually anything in our country,
people tend to view every policy decision with
some suspicion. But we must be careful not to
reduce patriotic causes to primordial biases.
INEC's decision to re-configure the structure of
polling units as well as create additional ones is
driven by our collective aspirations as Nigerians to
reform and improve upon the electoral process for
free, fair, peaceful and credible elections in 2015
and beyond. There is no sectional or parochial
agenda in this decision, as this press conference
will prove, and there will never be any such
agenda under this Commission.
The basic aim of the exercise we are presently
undertaking is to ease the access of voters to the
ballot box in the 2015 general elections and
beyond, by:
(i) decongesting over-crowded PUs and
dispersing voters as evenly as possible among all
the PUs;
(ii) locating PUs more effectively within
commuting distances of voters, given that
movement is usually restricted on Election Day.;
(iii) relocating the PUs from "in-front of"
private houses, and such other unsuitable places,
to public buildings or where this is not possible, to
public open spaces where tents can be provided;
(iv) locating the PUs inside classrooms or
such other suitable enclosures, in line with
international best practices;
(v) splitting large PUs such that they have
on average of 500 registered voters; and
(vi) creating additional PUs to cater for the
splitting of large polling units as well as new
settlements not serviced by any existing PU.
Background and Context
The present structure of polling units was created
in 1996 by the defunct National Electoral
Commission of Nigeria (NECON), which created
120,000 polling units and 8,809 wards
(Registration Areas). This structure of polling units
has been used for the 1999, 2003, 2007, and 2011
general elections. We are all witnesses to the
congested polling units on election days in 2011
and since then in many parts of the country.
From 1996 to date, there has been an exponential
growth in Nigeria's population; and there have
been severe demographic shifts resulting from new
settlements in major urban areas. For example, in
1996 when the current polling unit structure was
established, the estimated population of the
Country was about 110m. In 2006, after a national
population census, the population was 140m. In
2011, when the voters' registration was
undertaken, the population was estimated to be
about 160m. Today the population is estimated to
be around 175m. This represents nearly 60% rise
in the population since 1996.
These factors have, among other things, translated
to over-crowded polling units and the fact that
some established settlements are not serviced at
all under the existing structure, as we witnessed in
the 2011 general elections and in other elections
thereafter.
This rise in population, with corresponding
increase in the number of eligible voters was
clearly manifested during the 2011 fresh voter
registration exercise. At the end of the exercise,
having subjected the data gathered in the field to
Automated Finger-print Identification Software
(AFIS) to detect and eliminate duplicate registrants,
the Commission certified the total number of
registered voters, post-AFIS at 70,383,427. This
gives an average voter density of nearly 590 voters
per PU with the current number of polling units of
119,973. The reality, however, for most of the large
cities in the country, was different. For instance,
the FCT with a figure of registered voters of
892,628, and a total of 639 PUs and sub-Units
(562 Pus and 77 sub-Units), has an average of
nearly 1,400 voters per polling unit, with some
having over 3,000 and one even with over 4,000
registered voters! For the same FCT for example
over 80% of the polling units have 750 or more
registered voters each. For the rest of the Country,
17 states have at least over 30% of their polling
units having more than 750 registered voters, with
some having 60% or 50% of the polling units
affected.
In order to ameliorate the challenges of managing
polling units with large number of voters, the
Commission introduced the concept of "Voting
Points" (VPs); where polling units with large
numbers of voters are sub-divided into multiples of
manageable numbers of about 300, with a
maximum of 450 registered voters, which when
exceeded, the polling units are split into 2 or more
voting points, in multiples of about 300 registered
voters per voting point.
The use of voting points has continued to elicit
suspicion by political parties in the run-up to
elections, with some even accusing the
Commission of secretly creating additional polling
units, while some parties are even demanding they
be allowed to have polling agents at every voting
point! The continuation of the use of voting points
is simply incongruent with the reforms the
Commission is introducing in terms of the use of
enclosures for more conducive voting
environment, in tandem with international best
practice, apart from the fact that the Commission
will require some 250,000 card readers instead of
the 160,000 it plans to use in the 150,000 polling
units; thereby saving some 90,000 card readers
and over 2 billion Naira in costs.
It is therefore imperative for the Commission to re-
configure and create additional polling units, if we
are to improve on the conduct of elections and
make 2015 better than 2011.
About 150,000 polling units are required to ensure
right-sizing of our polling units based on the
number of registered voters. There is no gain-
saying the fact that there have been demographic
shifts across the country since 1996 when the
current structure was established. Many cities have
seen sizable new settlements developed. Most of
the new settlements have no polling units located
in them or in fact even within reasonable
distances. This phenomenon was amply
demonstrated when the Commission, working
together with the office of the Surveyor-General of
the Federation (OSGOF) and the National
Population Commission (NPopC), developed
composite maps showing satellite imagery overlain
with communities and geo-referenced locations of
the existing polling units. In FCT, for example in
AMAC alone, APO Gwari resettlement Area,
Asokoro New Extension, FCDA Quarters Area 3/
CBN Quarters before Garki village, Games Village,
and many others have no polling units; In Kuje
Area Council, Union Homes along Tukpeki Road,
there is no polling unit; in Bwari Area Council
Kontagora Estate behind Hajj camp, and many
others have no polling units.
From the foregoing, it is clear that to ensure the
2015 general elections are conducted under more
orderly and conducive atmosphere, thereby
creating an environment for free, and fair election,
and consolidating the gains of 2011 general
elections, additional polling units must be created
as described above.
Methodology for Re-configuring and creating new
Polling Units
Using the 2011 post-AFIS voters' register figure of
about 70,383,427, and based on a figure of 500
voters per polling unit, there should be at least
140,000 polling units in the country. Taking into
cognisance polling units in remote areas and
difficult terrains, with less than 500 registered
voters, as well as new registrants since 2011, a
new total polling unit number nationwide of about
150,000 was approved by the Commission.
Since PUs are created to service registered voters,
the fairest and most logical criterion to use in
distributing the 150,000 PUs nationwide is the
number of registered voters. At present the post-
AFIS (i.e. after removing duplicate registrants)
figure of registered voters is the most appropriate
figure of registered voters that is available
nationwide, to use; hence the decision to use
post-AFIS figures, as the basis for distributing the
150,000 polling units.
The simplest way to distribute the 150,000 polling
units is to divide the number of registered voters in
each state by 500 (maximum of registered per
polling unit). This is what is shown in
column (e) in the attached Table 1 to this press
statement. Comparing this column with that of
number of existing polling units in each state, i.e.
column (d) shows that some states have more
than what they should have based on 500
registered voters per polling unit. Redistributing
the 150,000 polling units based purely on 500
registered voters per state would mean these
states will lose polling units, as they have more
polling units than they should have.
The Commission took the view that no state
should lose any polling unit as a result of this
exercise, as it would be unrealistic to reduce the
number of polling units from any state,
notwithstanding the fact that they had exceeded
their numbers. Thus these states were allowed to
retain their excess polling units.
In fact the Commission went on to give further
relief to such states by providing that 15% of the
30,027 additional polling units be distributed
equally across all states, including the states that
had already exceeded their numbers. This was in
the spirit that each state should have, no matter
how small, some additional polling units during
this exercise, in order to carter for new
settlements, due to demographic shifts. As a result
even the states that had exceeded their numbers,
received additional 121 polling units over and
above their retained excess.
This is how the distribution of 150,000 PUs
nationwide as contained in attached Table I was
arrived at. Table II shows an analysis state by
state, of the number of polling units, related to the
number of registered voters in each state,
compared with the existing and new distributions
in percentage terms. It is evident from
the Table II that the new distribution of polling
units is much more equitable than previously.
From the forgoing it is clear that the Commission
has used very scientific, rational and equitable
criteria to redistribute the 150,000 polling units. In
fact in its effort to carry every one along, the
Commission bent over backwards to not only
allow states with excess polling units based on
their voter strength retain the polling units, but
made it possible for them to even get additional
polling units.
Spurious Allegations
Critics have bandied about spurious allegations,
which need to be specifically addressed. I wish to
do so in what follows:
Why did INEC adopt the Post-AFIS register of
voters and not the Post-Business Rule register of
voters as the baseline for calculating the number of
PUs?: At the end of the general registration of
voters in 2011, the Commission announced that
the data of 73. 5 million eligible voters had been
captured – warts and all; that is, including the
records of multiple (Emphasis: not "ghost")
registrants. At the conclusion of data de-
duplication with the Automated Fingerprint
Identification Software (AFIS), by which cases of
multiple registrations were eliminated, the figure
came down to 70,383,427 registered voters. These
are genuine, non-multiple, identifiable registrants;
and so, potentially eligible as voters. Critics have
made much issue about this figure declining
further in the 'Post-Business Rule Register.' The
fact, however, is that during the registration
exercise, the general requirement was to capture
the 10 fingerprints of every registrant. But as we
have discovered in the process of data
consolidation, some registrants did not have their
fingerprints properly captured; and so did not
satisfy the 'business rule' we adopted for
producing Permanent Voter Cards (PVCs), namely
that every registrant must have in his/her
biometric record a minimum of four fingerprints
(two on each hand) so that the PVC will be
machine-readable in the 2015 elections. The
affected persons remain potentially eligible as
voters, and are expected to come out during the
Continuous Voter Registration (CVR) exercise to get
their data recaptured. For polling unit configuration
that will serve in 2015 and well into the future,
therefore, we cannot reasonably plan without
taking account of this set of potentially eligible
voters; otherwise we would need to undertake
another exercise of polling unit creation when they
come out to get their data recaptured, as they
really are expected to do.
On alleged Zonal disproportion in the distribution of
the polling units: Based on the statistical
projections I earlier explained, the 'need factor,'
more than political sentiments, informed the
pattern of distribution of the PUs that we are
creating. Still, the Commission has not been
unmindful of the political nature of the exercise;
and that is why it took the decision that: (i) No
state will lose any polling unit from its stock of
existing PUs, no matter the statistical outlook when
the voter population is disaggregated into units of
500 persons; and (ii) Every state will get some
additional polling units from 15% of the total being
newly created on the basis of 'equality principle' –
regardless of the number of PUs already existing in
each state in comparison to the voter population.
We have already made the computed figures in this
regard public. Contrary to the argument by critics,
the Commission is not working on imaginary
population sizes based on perceived patterns of
migration by potential voters; rather, it is working
with the documented register of voters as we have
it at the moment. Furthermore, critics seem to only
focus on the allocation of the proposed 30,027
PUs; what should be done is to compare total
allocations state by state. Thus we urge Nigerians
to closely examine the attached tables and
compare the proportional distribution of PUs
presently in existence and the proposed new
distribution. It will be clear that there is no
significant variation in the proportional percentage
allocation, amongst states, or between geopolitical
zones.
On the numbers of polling units being allocated to
respective state: The additional 30,027 polling
units, as I have observed, are being created to
address the issue of crowd clusters under the
present structure. Therefore, the distribution could
not be even among all the states because the
challenge being addressed is not evenly present in
all the states. We have used voting points since
2011 to mitigate the problem of crowd clusters.
Talking about numbers, critics of the exercise
should ask: in which states have we had more
voting points created in existing PUs than others
since 2011; and then, they should check whether
the distribution profile of the new PUs does not
reflect the proportion of that informal arrangement.
Does the number of polling units confer any
political advantage on a state / region? With the
structure of the political process put in place by
the present INEC, the answer simply is 'No!' Polling
Units constitute a mere structural arrangement to
ease the access of voters to the ballot box. They
have nothing to do with determining the
preferences of voters in making their electoral
choices. In fact, the new configuration we are
putting in place will bring the PUs out to places
where they can be accessed more easily – not
only by voters, but by polling agents of political
parties and election observers as well. This will
enhance, rather than detract from the integrity of
the electoral process.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Commission has
not yet created the additional Polling Units. It has
simply approved the framework and guidelines to
facilitate the creation of these additional Polling
Units by the Resident Electoral Commissioners and
the State Offices of INEC. In collaboration with
other government agencies, especially OSGOF, we
have even produced Maps with the GIS location of
existing Polling Units nationwide, in order provide
the states a rational, scientific basis for the
practical exercise of re-configuring and locating
additional PUs. It is only when the states have
used the framework and guidelines and have
proposed the new PUs for each state, that the
Commission will create the PUs.
From the explanation we have provided, I must
therefore emphasize that the motive of INEC in
restructuring the existing polling units and creating
more is sincere and well-intentioned. The
Commission implores all Nigerians to set aside
primordial sentiments and view the exercise with
dispassion and patriotism, taking into account the
lofty objectives that the new structure of polling
units is intended to achieve.
Finally, I wish to categorically state that all the
conspiracy theories and mischievous assertions
and perceptions of parochial intentions of the
Commission are totally false. INEC remains
focused and committed to taking patriotic
decisions, which are in the best interest of our
country and the voters, so as to keep on satisfying
the aspirations of Nigerians for free, fair, peaceful
and credible elections. We will continue to do this
with the best standards of integrity, impartiality and
non- partisanship expected of us an Election
Management Body.
I hope that with this clarification, we will put the
unnecessary and unwholesome controversy on the
matter of additional polling units to rest.
Thank you.
God bless the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Professor Attahiru M. Jega, OFR
CHAIRMAN, INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL
COMMISSION (INEC)
No comments:
Post a Comment