Presidency, governors keep watch over INEC by way of political interests – Odinkalu

Introduction: Political Influence Over INEC Sparks Controversy

The governance of Nigeria’s electoral processes has long been a subject of scrutiny, with critics highlighting systemic challenges in maintaining impartiality. In a recent interview on Channels Television’s Politics Today, Prof. Chidi Odinkalu, former Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, made alarming allegations about the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). Odinkalu contends that INEC operates under significant political influence from the presidency and state governors, undermining its mandate for neutral electoral oversight. While acknowledging Prof. Joash Amupitan’s integrity as a successor to the INEC chairmanship, Odinkalu warns that “INEC is a territory ruled by many principalities,” where political interests dictate outcomes. This article examines Odinkalu’s claims, analyzes the broader implications for Nigerian democracy, and explores practical steps to safeguard electoral integrity.

Analysis: Deconstructing Odinkalu’s Allegations

INEC Governance Under a Web of Political Interests

Odinkalu paints a troubling picture of INEC as a system where political actors exert control over every level. He asserts that “every workforce member in INEC is accounted for,” meaning appointments and operational decisions align with the interests of influential figures in government. This claim aligns with longstanding concerns about electoral bodies in post-colonial states, where independent oversight is often compromised by centralized power structures. By controlling INEC’s operations, political entities can manipulate voter registration, voter education, and the logistics of elections themselves, directly impacting the legitimacy of electoral outcomes.

Amupitan’s Potential Vs. Systemic Challenges

Odinkalu praises Prof. Amupitan’s personal integrity, noting their shared journey as law school peers. However, he emphasizes that individual virtue alone cannot counteract institutionalized political interference. Amupitan’s tenure, according to Odinkalu, may be constrained by pre-existing networks within INEC—”plants” from the presidency and state governments that shape policy and resource allocation. This dynamic mirrors historical patterns in Nigerian governance, where technocrats often face pressure to align with factional interests to sustain their appointments.

The Analogy of “Principalities” in INEC

The metaphor of INEC as a “territory ruled by many principalities” underscores the decentralized nature of political influence within the commission. Unlike a hierarchical structure, this system allows multiple stakeholders—presidential appointees, state governors, and their allies—to assert dominance. For instance, governors may deploy political appointees as “flesh pressers” (state electoral officers) to control local electoral processes. Such fragmentation creates opportunities for patronage, corruption, and biased voter suppression, particularly in states with weak institutional accountability mechanisms.

Summary: Key Themes and Takeaways

Prof. Odinkalu’s critique centers on the intersection of political power and INEC’s operational independence. While acknowledging Amupitan’s qualifications, he stresses that systemic reforms are indispensable to mitigate the risk of partisan manipulation. The absence of clear safeguards against political interference jeopardizes Nigeria’s democratic framework, especially in an era where misinformation and logistical challenges already threaten electoral transparency. The report underscores the urgency of addressing INEC’s structural vulnerabilities to uphold the credibility of future elections.

Key Points: At-A-Glance Insights

• INEC faces pervasive political interference from the presidency and state governors.
• Prof. Amupitan’s integrity is commendable but insufficient to counter entrenched systemic issues.
• Political actors effectively control INEC through “plants” embedded in regional offices.
• The commission’s independence is jeopardized by a lack of transparent accountability mechanisms.
• Civil society and media play critical roles in monitoring and exposing electoral malpractices.

Practical Advice: Strengthening Electoral Integrity

To counteract political interference, stakeholders must adopt proactive measures:

Enhancing Transparency Through Technology

Introducing biometric voter registration databases and blockchain-based vote tracking could reduce manual tampering. International examples, such as Estonia’s digital voting system, demonstrate how technology can enhance trust in electoral processes.

Empowering Civil Society

NGOs and organizations like the Center for Democracy and Development (CDD) should expand voter education campaigns and conduct independent audits of INEC’s operations. These efforts can hold officials accountable and deter malpractice.

Legal Reforms for Independent Oversight

Advocates should push for constitutional amendments to insulate INEC from political appointments. Establishing a judicial review mechanism for disputed electoral outcomes could further reinforce impartiality.

Points of Caution: Avoiding Overgeneralization

Odinkalu’s critique, while valid, must be contextualized. Nigeria’s electoral challenges are multifaceted, involving logistical bottlenecks, voter apathy, and infrastructural deficits. Blanket accusations risk overshadowing the commission’s genuine efforts, such as its adoption of the Electoral Act (2022) to streamline dispute resolution. Engaging policymakers constructively, rather than through polarizing rhetoric, is essential for meaningful reform.

Comparison: INEC vs. Global Electoral Bodies

Learning from international models can illuminate pathways for improvement:

UK’s Independent Commission for Electoral Registration

The UK’s non-partisan electoral commission, funded directly by Parliament, offers a blueprint for depoliticizing INEC. Its members are appointed by independent bodies rather than elected officials, a structure that minimizes patronage networks.

South Africa’s Election Management Bodies

South Africa’s Election Management Bodies (EMBs), such as the Independent Boundaries Redistricting Commission, operate under legal frameworks that prioritize transparency. Mandatory public reporting of expenditure and voter recruitment strategies could inspire similar reforms in Nigeria.

Legal Implications: The Case for Accountability

Under Nigeria’s Electoral Act (2022) and the 1999 Constitution, citizens have a constitutional right to free and fair elections. Odinkalu’s allegations, if substantiated, could form the basis of legal challenges in court. For instance, the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) has precedent for investigating electoral fraud. Legal scholars argue that sustained interference by political actors may constitute a breach of constitutional obligations, warranting judicial intervention.

Conclusion: A Call for Collaborative Reform

The integrity of Nigeria’s electoral process hinges on dismantling political interference within INEC. While individual integrity matters, systemic changes—such as transparent appointment processes, tech-driven oversight, and independent funding mechanisms—are equally critical. Policymakers, civil society, and the media must collaborate to ensure INEC fulfills its role as a guardian of democratic principles. Only then can Nigeria’s elections truly reflect the will of its citizens.

FAQ: Addressing Common Questions

1. Can INEC truly remain independent in Nigeria’s political landscape?

Achieving complete independence is challenging due to entrenched interests. However, reforms like mandatory asset declarations and judicial oversight of disputes can bolster impartiality.

2. How does political interference affect voters?

Voter suppression, rigged results, and unequal access to electoral resources undermine public trust. Youth and marginalized communities are disproportionately affected by such practices.

3. What steps is INEC currently taking to address these issues?

INEC has introduced measures like voter education programs and digital voter databases. However, enforcement remains inconsistent, highlighting the need for stronger legal frameworks.

Sources:

1. DailyPost Nigeria. “Presidency, governors keep watch over INEC by way of political interests.” October 23, 2025. dailypost.ng
2. Nigerian Electoral Act (2022), Sections 12-20.