When a political party looks at an electoral commission’s candidate list and says, “We don’t know these people,” you already know there is serious wàhálà somewhere.

That is what the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) said happened in Anambra State on Sunday, August 30, when the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) published the names of 10 people as the party’s candidates for various State House of Assembly constituencies.

• INEC Chairman Joash Amupitan/Photo: The Guardian

There is nothing unusual about publishing candidates’ names. But in this case, the NDC said none of the 10 emerged from its nomination and appeals process, was authorised by the party, or was submitted by its leadership to INEC.

Its National Chairman, Moses Cleopas Zuwoghe, accused INEC officials of replacing the party’s candidates with what he described as “impostors” and called for an investigation.

INEC, however, said it does not nominate candidates for political parties and has denied replacing the NDC’s candidates. The commission says the responsibility for nominating candidates lies with political parties, while its nomination portal maintains electronic records that can be audited.

Strange things are happening 

We went through the claims, the names published by INEC, and the explanations from both sides to see what can actually be established.

According to Zuwoghe, party stakeholders in Anambra, the national leadership, representatives of NDC’s presidential candidate Peter Obi, and members of its appeals panel agreed on a final list after the nomination process. He says that the list was signed off and uploaded to INEC’s nomination portal using credentials issued to the party.

Zuwoghe said that things got messy after that and alleged that nine of the names were left in “Pending” status after the party uploaded its list. He explained that INEC officials told the party that those names were already in the commission’s system based on information submitted by officials who monitored the NDC’s primaries.

The party said it challenged the disputed entries and submitted the names it considered its legitimate candidates. However, the NDC claimed that INEC nevertheless retained the disputed names and later collected Form EC-9 directly from the affected individuals before publishing them as NDC candidates.

Well, after the NDC gave its account of what happened, INEC responded that it hadn’t tampered with the names, as it doesn’t nominate candidates.

The good news is that, according to INEC, activities on the portal are electronically logged and can be audited.

That means the records should, at least, provide a trail showing who submitted what and when.

INEC also said it would examine its electronic and documentary records concerning the constituencies named by the NDC and invited the party to provide evidence of any misconduct by its officials.

How did the names get there?

The question is no longer simply whether these ten names appear on INEC’s list. They do, according to the NDC.

The difficult part is establishing how these names got there. And this makes all the difference because if INEC is already facing these issues at the state level, how does it want to tackle the complexity of national elections?

The NDC’s allegation is specific: it says its candidates were submitted through the party’s nomination process and that different names were subsequently published by INEC.

INEC’s response is also specific: the commission says parties nominate their own candidates and that its electronic records can be checked to establish what happened.

That leaves Nigerians waiting for the one thing that could help settle the dispute: the electronic records INEC says can be audited.

Until INEC’s records and the NDC’s original signed list are made available, the public can only establish that there is a dispute over the 10 names, leaving them to wonder how it happened. 

The Big Daily is your weekday shortcut to the biggest news shaping Nigeria. We cut through the noise, connect the dots, and explain why the news actually matters, all in one quick read.

A small inconsistency 

There is also a small inconsistency in the NDC’s account of the incident. The party claimed that 10 names appeared on the Anambra list without its authorisation, and identified all 10.

But in explaining what happened on the nomination portal, Zuwoghe repeatedly referred to nine names being left in “Pending” status.

It is not clear whether the reference to nine relates to a separate stage of the nomination process or whether one of the 10 disputed candidates was treated differently.

That is something the NDC should clarify, because its entire allegation rests on the sequence of events that produced the final list.

So, did INEC do it?

At this point, there is not enough publicly available evidence to say that it did. 

What can be established is that the commission published 10 people as NDC candidates for various State House of Assembly constituencies and that the NDC alleged that those people were not its candidates. 

For now, the ballot may have 10 names on it that one political party says it never asked to put there.  

These allegations cannot be swept under the rug or settled in secret. Somebody, somewhere, should be able to explain how this happened. 

Why does an independent investigation matter?

INEC also has a reputation to protect. This year alone, the commission has faced controversies that raised questions about its neutrality and the security of its systems.

First, old pro-APC posts allegedly linked to INEC Chairman, Joash Amupitan, resurfaced online, although INEC denied that he operated the account and said investigations pointed to impersonation.

Then, a screenshot containing actor Emeka Ike’s voter information was posted by Lere Olayinka, an aide to the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Minister Nyesom Wike, raising questions about how information from INEC’s backend allegedly got into political hands.

And just recently, on August 18, one of the factional gubernatorial candidates for the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Taofeek Adegboyega Adegoke, was caught on camera boasting that his name and those of his faction’s candidates were not the ones initially on INEC’s portal until he and God intervened. 

These incidents do not prove that INEC replaced the NDC’s candidates. But they show why the commission cannot afford to simply investigate itself and ask Nigerians to take its word for it.

An independent audit of the disputed records could help establish exactly what happened and, just as importantly, help INEC protect the public trust it needs to conduct elections. Because when Nigerians are already side-eyeing the referee, “we investigated ourselves and found nothing” may not be enough.