EU slams organisation of elections

The European Union’s Election Observation Mission (EU EOM) yesterday criticised the elections.

But the EU EOM returned a better verdict on the governorship election, saying: “overall, the process appeared to be more efficient with polling staff working diligently and improvements evident in the more timely opening of polling sites”.

That was the best the EU election observer mission said about the elections.

In its second preliminary statement issued yesterday in Abuja by the Chief of EU EOM, Santiago Fisas, the Mission said President Goodluck Jonathan’s concession of election defeat “may be partly attributed to the sustained efforts of the National Peace Committee which was formed to monitor compliance with the Abuja  Accord and to find mediated solutions to electoral disputes”.

The EU team said INEC failed to provide “breakdown of the results, thereby precluding the checking of announced results, which risks diminished confidence”.

“INEC, till date, has not centrally published the results of the Senate nor for the House of Representatives.”

This, according to the EU, leaves stakeholders without official information on the composition of the new parliament, and instead relying on party and media unofficial compilations of results, which sometimes lack inconsistency.

Also, the EU condemned the collation of the election results, describing it “as the weakest part of the Election Day process”.  According to the EU “out of the 43 collation centres on election night and in the following days, 14 were assessed as ‘bad’ and ‘very bad’. The first level of collation (at wards) appeared to be particularly problematic, with 8 out of 17 rated as “bad” or ‘very bad”.

Fisas said results in some cases did “not always arrive in sealed tamper-proof envelopes (in 12 centres not one of the results arrived sealed), results not always being displayed at the centers, mathematical errors, inconsistent checking of results, and some repeated alterations of result forms.”

According to him, “scrutiny appeared to be weak especially at the lower levels, with APC and PDP agents present only in 34 and 33 centers respectively and citizen observers only in 14 centers out of 43. In five centers visited, there were no agents or citizen observers present at all”.

The EU EOM observers did not find any evidence of systematic manipulation of results, but the available presidential results from Rivers State, however, “include only highly implausible data, such as zero rejected(invalid) ballots out of 25,174 ballots cast in Omuma Local Government Area (LGA), no difference between the number of accredited registrants and the number who actually voted in Emohua and Ogu/Bolo LGAs, and a 98% turnout in the Emohua LGA.” Such questionable data, Fisas said, warrants further investigation.

Commenting on other indicators of attempts to manipulate, the EU cited the findings of  the Transition Monitoring Group (TMG), which stated that “turnout was inflated by at least 10 percent, with results adjusted in favour of PDP it doubted the collation in Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa, Delta and Rivers.”

The EU Election Observer Mission noted: “Some state representatives and candidates of the PDP and APC were seen to misuse incumbency. There were reported cases of abuse of state resources and also biased policing, as well as breaches of  campaign regulations and inducement of voters. Intimidation of opponents and deployment of armed thugs reportedly occured in Rivers, Lagos, Kaduna, Ogun and Oyo states.”

Of particular concern to the EU was that religion, ethnic and sectional sentiments continued after the presidential election, including the threat of the Oba of Lagos to Igbo about perishing in the lagoon. The mission described the threats by some ex-militants and Ijaw youths in the Niger Delta as having increased the ethnic tension and sharp reactions in the social and public media.

The mission faulted INEC leadership at both national and state levels for failing to provide sufficient information on the evident problems that arose during the elections. “Thus, it is not clear in how many locations polling could not be completed for security reasons. However, during collation, it became evident that in most observed states, some polling unit results were cancelled or could not be cleared due to over-voting, vandalism or snatching of material,” the EU said.

The EU was worried that the “total number of registered voters in the declaration of the presidential election is, without any public explanation given, lower by 1.4 million than the total number of registered voters previously officially announced by INEC”.

The official presidential turnout figure provided the EU said “is calculated from this reduced number of registered voters and refers to turnout for accreditation rather than for voting. This is a significant difference, given that over 2.3 million of those that were accredited (7.3%) did not finally cast their ballot. The announced official turnout is thus 47.09 percent, with a total of 29,432,083 votes cast. This is reduction from the 39,469,484 votes reportedly cast in  2011. The actual voter turnout (as opposed to accreditation turnout), calculated from the total number of registered voters officially announced by INEC on 13 January, is 42.76 percent.

Of the 80 observation of voting, Fisas revealed that “23 were negatively evaluated. In 12 sites, there was interference with polling officials’ work, mainly by party agents. In 23 sites, ballot boxes were not sealed. Ink was not checked at all in 37 sites visited and in 25 locations ink was not applied. In 20 sites, voters never marked their ballot in secret and in 16 locations group voting was observed.”

During closing, Fisas stated, essential checks were not consistently performed. According to him, “in nearly half the locations observed, unused ballots were not cancelled, counted or recorded as required. Similarly, counterfoils of used ballot papers were not generally counted, and basic reconciliation was not undertaken. In five sites visited, observers and agents were not able to observe counting without undue restrictions. In seven sites, PU results were not posted and in four, copies were not given to agents.

The Mission will be back to Nigeria in June with its final report on the elections.