The Nation

Sam Amadi: Edo guber flaws sufficient reason for radical electoral reforms

November 10, 2024 9:59 pm

Sam Amadi, former chairman of the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC) during a panel discussion on next steps on the PIGB

Sam Amadi, director of the Abuja School of Social and Political Thought, says the “gross flaws” and “manipulations” in the Edo governorship election are sufficient reason for the country to have radical and comprehensive electoral reforms.

Addressing a press conference over the weekend in Abuja, Amadi said the performance of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in Edo does not inspire confidence that it would do better in the forthcoming Ondo election.

There were allegations election results were manipulated.

“The INEC leadership has assured that they will avoid the mistakes of Edo,” he said.

“There is no reason to trust that they would act honestly to uphold electoral integrity in Ondo.

“The second issue is the procedure of result collation in Edo. We have read reports of forensic reviews of observer groups. We see clearly that the result declared by INEC differs materially from the results uploaded in the IREV.

“This inconsistency is damaging to the integrity of the elections. Furthermore, INEC is issuing certified copies of results that are different from what it has uploaded on the IREV.

“This is alarming. It does not assure us of the integrity of future elections.”

Amadi, a former chair of the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC), said the judicial management of election cases “does not inspire confidence in electoral democracy because of the refusal to overrule INEC and cancel results that are fraudulently procured”.

“The insistence that all evidence must have been frontloaded on the petition means that the courts give INEC a wild card to get out of jail whenever its declaration is being challenged.

“We have witnessed this tragedy in Kogi and other cases. This is a disservice to electoral democracy.

“Whereas the courts are not to replace voters as the electors, the court should establish enough judicial deterrence by willingness to cancel results that does not meet the strict requirement of the law.”