A few days after the release of an independent report by an arm of the European Union, EU, the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, on Tuesday commenced its post-election review of the general elections.
MDB had reported that the European Union Election Observation Mission, EU-EOM, on the February 25 and March 18 elections had released a report on its findings, noting that shortcomings in law and electoral administration hindered the conduct of well-run and inclusive elections and damaged trust in the INEC.
Read Also: Senate Issues Ultimatum To IGP Over Extortion Of Motorists
Speaking during the commission’s meeting with Resident Electoral Commissioners, RECs, in Abuja, the INEC Chairman, Prof. Mahmood Yakubu, explained why it had kept mute on the divergent opinions expressed on its conduct, process and outcome of the 2023 general elections.
Mr Yakubu noted that since the conclusion of the election, diverse opinions had been expressed by political parties, candidates, observers, analysts and the general public on aspects of the elections that took place in February and March.
He said that such diverse opinions should normally be expected, adding that INEC had welcome all of them in as much as the purpose was to improve the future conduct of elections and to consolidate Nigeria’s democracy.
He said that the commission had consciously not joined in those commentaries in the immediate aftermath of the election for several reasons, including not to undermine the ongoing litigation process at the court.
He said that INEC’s preference was to listen more and draw lessons rather than join in the heated and often emotive public discussion on the election.
Mr Yakubu added that since INEC’s plan was to conduct its own post-election review of the election, it saw no need to pre-empt the process.
“The Commission would not want to be seen as defensive or justificatory in joining the ongoing discussions.
“Finally, and perhaps most importantly, several issues around the election are sub-judice and it is not the intention of the Commission to either undermine or promote the chances of litigants in the various election petition courts beyond what is required of us by the legal process.
“Indeed, practically anything coming from the Commission could be cited by litigants as either justifying their claims or an indication of bias against them,’’ Mr Yakubu said.
