*Professor Jega was the Chairman of the
Independent Electoral Commission of Nigeria from 2010 to 2015)
1.
What was the context of the 2015 elections
in Nigeria?
The period
leading to the March 2015 national elections in Nigeria was marked by very high
expectations. Specifically, there was the expectation that the Independent
National Election Commission (INEC) would improve on previous elections in
Nigeria. People wanted a more efficient and effective INEC capable of enhancing
the integrity of Nigerian elections. Given some of the experiences in previous
elections in Nigeria, people were anxious about INEC’s ability to address
fraud, multiple voting, and to develop a more valid voter register. On its own
part, INEC considered all these concerns and became determined to address them.
It made a commitment to administer an election with much improved integrity and
started preparations for the elections very early. We started preparing immediately
after the April 2011 national elections and all preparations were geared toward
fulfilling the commitment to conduct remarkably improved elections in Nigeria.
This was the background to 2015 elections.
2.
Why did you want to introduce
biometric voter registration?
The use of biometric voter
registration (BVR) in the 2015 elections was not new to elections in Nigeria.
INEC used BVR before the 2011 elections. The reason for introducing it at the
time was that INEC realized that the quality of an election was closely related
to the integrity or validity of the voter register. INEC was also convinced
that using biometric technology not only for registration process, but also for
maintaining a database of registered voters would help improve the overall quality
of elections in Nigeria.
At
the time when BVR was done in January/February 2011, many people were concerned
that it may not be possible to utilize the system for the 2011 elections due to
the short time period. The elections were to hold in April of 2011. INEC was
able to conduct the BVR within three weeks. This entailed equipping each of the
120,000 polling units in Nigeria with a data capture device. Between February
and March of 2011, INEC was able to remove close to one million multiple registrants
from the voter register.
For
the 2015 elections, we used Advance Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS)
for de-duplication and removal of multiple registrants in the national database.
INEC ensured that this technology was widely used to match fingerprints, and to
eliminate multiple registrants. This helped us to improve on the national
database, which INEC had established since 2011. Since the AFIS we used was
about 95% accurate, we also made provisions for it to be complemented by a manual,
physical verification system. Through this manual verification process, INEC
detected and removed more multiple registrants from the register. At the time
of the elections, INEC was confident that it had the cleanest register ever
used in elections in Nigeria.
Despite this, we were also conscious
of the possibility of multiple voting and knew we needed to prevent it. This
was why INEC issued every registered voter with the Permanent Voters Card (PVC),
which contained his/her demographic and biometric information on a chip. We
then used the Smart Card Readers (SCRs) during the 2015 elections to identify,
verify and authenticate voters before they were allowed to vote. The
combination of the PVC and the card reader helped to prevent multiple voting.
3.
What factors did you consider when
selecting a system?
A significant consideration was
whether the technological system chosen could address unique challenges
associated with the Nigerian electoral system. After assessing the challenges
that we had to address, INEC developed its own requirements and specifications
for a technological system. The requirements demanded a system that is robust,
could ensure efficiency and promote transparency in the electoral process.
4.
What impact does trust in the
independence of the EMB have on acceptance of the new technology?
Trust is very important. Indeed, an
electoral commission has a responsibility to be honest and earn the trust of
citizens. In Nigeria, INEC held series of meetings with a broad range of
stakeholders including political parties and civil society groups. These
meetings availed us the opportunity to liaise with other stakeholders and this proved
to be key in the efforts of INEC to build trust and confidence. This is very
important.
5.
How did you get buy-in from political
parties, CSOs, etc.? When and how did
the consultations take place?
INEC started meeting stakeholders very
early as part of its preparation for the 2015 elections. Between 2011 and 2015
when the elections took place, we had stakeholder meetings, especially with
representatives of registered political parties, quarterly. That is, every
three months. These meetings served as an avenue for INEC to share its ideas
and plans for the forthcoming elections. It was during some of these meetings
that INEC presented the new technologies it used for the elections to
stakeholders and got their buy-in. We also demonstrated to them how the
technology works. This included explanations about procedure and guidelines for
use of the card readers on election-day. We also did public demonstrations and
testing and sensitization and public enlightenment.
As the elections drew closer,
INEC-stakeholder meetings were more regular. We held meetings with political
parties – the party chairs and secretaries - every month before the elections.
This helped to build trust and to foster consensus on key issues relating to
the elections. There were instances, however, when political parties appeared subsequently
to kick against some decisions that were agreed on at these meetings. The card
reader was a case in point. As the elections drew closer, one of the political
parties kicked against using the card reader even though it had earlier given
support to its use. But INEC, knowing that the party’s change of mind was
purely political – and as the legally mandated body to make such decisions -
proceeded with the use of the card reader technology for the elections.
Since there were extensive
consultations, many stakeholders, especially civil society groups who were
involved in the process, understood the situation and knew exactly what INEC
was doing. In most cases, it was these civil society groups that were
advocating for INEC and defending the arrangements and plans for the elections.
In addition, inclusiveness maximizes the inputs from others and this serves to
reduce the chances for mistakes. The mutual trust that is fostered through an
inclusive process also helps to ensure that even when mistakes occurred, people
were more willing and able to show support and understanding.
6.
What were the strengths and challenges
of introducing the system you used?
One of the strengths of introducing
the technological system – BVR, AFIS, PVC and the card reader (which was novel)
- was that it eliminated the chances for electoral fraud. This increased trust
and confidence in the process. In addition, the system allowed for enhanced
information collection and storage. Using the system, INEC was able to
establish databases at the national level and at the state levels, complimented
by 2 disaster recovery centers. The card reader had the capacity to transmit
information from the polling stations to the national database that INEC
maintained.
However, the use of technology had its
own challenges. Some of it was due to the infrastructural conditions in
Nigeria. Due to inadequate power supply, INEC had to rely on generators to
charge the card readers in remote areas. Another challenge stemmed from the
fact that technology is not widely produced or manufactured in Nigeria. The
issue was how to get equipment providers to comply with INEC specifications.
The United Nations Development Program assisted on this front. They helped with
quality assurance, which made certain that equipment providers complied with
the specifications developed by INEC. Dependency
on equipment providers is also another possible challenge that could arise in
this regard, especially in spare parts, licensing and software, etc.
The use of technology is also very
expensive. In the case of Nigeria, however, there was a broad commitment to
credible elections including among the stakeholders. This was very helpful
because people saw the cost implication as a worthy expense necessary to meet
the needs of improved elections in the country in the national quest to deepen
democracy.
7.
What were the challenges of
implementing the system?
Implementation challenges were largely
infrastructural. The inadequacy of power supply and the limited Internet coverage
and mobile network connectivity made the use of the technological system particularly
challenging. The ability of the card reader to transmit information from the
polling stations to the national database was challenging due to limited mobile
connectivity in some remote locations. INEC anticipated these challenges and
made adequate provisions to address them. We made provisions for power
generating sets among other things.
8.
What reforms do you think need to be
made to the system in advance of the next election?
Every technology requires updating.
Before the next elections, INEC needs to update the register. It also needs to
review the card reader technology used for the 2015 elections. I believe the
current Commission is aware of these, and is working towards addressing them.
9.
What advice would you give other
election commissions that are considering introducing biometric VR systems?
I encourage all African EMBs to
introduce BVR. It is better than manual registration and optical marker
scanning systems. BVR makes for integrity, efficiency and transparency of
elections.
EMBs, however, have to make adaptive
use of BVR systems and technology in general. Where this is not done, it can
lead to a dependency on the technology or equipment providers. There are many
technology providers and the EMB has to seek those that will best facilitate an
adaptive use of the technology they offer or provide.
10. What
questions would you suggest electoral management bodies ask themselves or
vendors when considering introducing new technologies?
I encourage all EMBs to ask questions
on the following issues:
a. What are the specifications of the
equipment or technological device? This is most important when, unlike in the
case of Nigeria, the EMB has not developed its own specifications beforehand.
It may also be the case that the EMB does not have the capacity to develop its
own specifications. In such cases, there should be a strong emphasis on
specifications and the EMB should ensure that it is very well informed on the
specifications of the technology.
b. It is also important to ask about
licensing fees and proprietary rights/conditions. Some technological
arrangements may be such that vendors increase fees over time. The EMB should
ensure it knows the exact terms for licensing and proprietary rights.
c. The issue of technology transfer is
also very important. The EMB should ask what arrangements are in place to train
EMB staff so that it can avoid a reliance on foreign ‘experts’. In this sense,
it is important for the EMB to arrange for its ICT unit to get trained on the
operation and use of the technological devices and systems, how to maintain and
service them, and so on.
d. The EMB should ask details about
technical support arrangements. This is extremely important especially when
deploying a new system. When Where an EMB is about to deploy a new system, it
should ensure that the vendor is willing and capable of providing a strong
support system should anything go wrong in the course of using the
technological system. This will ensure that problems or hiccups are addressed
in a quick and timely manner.
Interview with Prof. Jega
Monday 23 May, 2016
