*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
