By Festus Okoye
One of the complex and fundamental chains in the success and credibility of the electoral process is Election Security.  It is critical to the success of the electoral process and no electoral management body can conduct successful elections if the security environment is charged, polluted or violent.

It is on account of the importance of election security and the need for its impartiality and independence on electoral duty that some countries domicile the control and direction of the Police Force in the hands of the Chief Electoral Officer of the country a week or more before the conduct of a major election. In which case, the Electoral Management Body brings into its web, the security apparatus of the country for purposes of direction and instruction pending the conclusion of elections.

Understandably and for reasons of precedent and notoriety, Nigerians heap all the blame for failure to organise credible elections on the Independent National Electoral Commission. This fixation and somewhat paranoid disposition that locates the Independent National Electoral Commission as the biggest culprit in Nigeria’s electoral malfeasance tends to and has consistently overlooked the role of security agencies in the complex web of electoral fraud and malfeasance.

Even those that acknowledge the importance of election security in guaranteeing credible elections in Nigeria still see and perceive the Independent National Electoral Commission as a willing tool in the hands of the government in power and the security agencies in the perpetration of electoral fraud and irregularities.

These persons blame the Independent National Electoral Commission for deliberately creating the loopholes for security breach on account of prior compromise with the government in power.

To these persons the Electoral Commission has the capacity and resources to conduct credible elections but would not do so on account of the fact that it has been compromised. Hence, a confusing election security arrangement serves its purpose and gives room to execute programmed electoral outcomes.

There is merit and validity in the accusations of complicity and collaboration between the Commission and the security agencies in the recycling of electoral fraud and irregularities. Previous electoral helmsmen have tried to no avail to dispute it.

The Commission has in consequence suffered a credibility deficit and derided by the Nigerian people. The Commission is therefore seen as a graveyard of credibility and the government as the willing undertakers in the enterprise.

It is true that the Independent National Electoral Commission holds the key to the credibility of the electoral process.

They are the ones that are constitutionally and statutorily empowered to arrange and conduct the registration of persons qualified to vote and prepare, maintain and revise the register of voters for the purpose of any election under the Constitution. They are empowered to organise, undertake and supervise all elections under their suzerainty. These are enormous responsibilities that enhances or abridges the sovereign right of the Nigerian people to a government of their choice.

But the truth of the matter is that carrying out the constitutional and statutory functions of conducting, organising and supervising elections and its interrelated activities is undertaken by a complex web of governmental organs and stakeholders in the electoral process.

All the organs must function symbiotically and the asymmetrically functioning of any of the organs or the malfunctioning of one organ or a chain affects in a fundamental way the functioning of the other chains and organs.  In our own circumstances, security agencies have in the past deliberatively operated outside organised electoral web.

Some of them have at different occasions in the past assisted to undermine the credibility of the electoral process.

Some assisted unscrupulous politicians hijack election materials, intimidate voters, organise an atmosphere of fear and violence and disengaged the voting public from the electoral process. Others simply did nothing in the face of electoral fraud and irregularities on account of having been compromised. Some it must be acknowledged carried out their assigned responsibilities professionally and ethically.

It is axiomatic that without adequate security, the electoral management body cannot plan and deploy effectively. Without adequate security arrangement, the voters will not agree to come out in large numbers to cast their voters.

Electoral officials will also not agree to exhibit acts of courage in the protection of the votes of the people if they perceive that those that can protect them in such circumstances are part of the fraudulent electoral security web roped together by some unscrupulous politicians and their hirelings.

It is on account of the security challenges of the electoral process that a substantial number of Nigerians disengaged from the electoral process or got dislocated from it.

The issue is how to re_engage the Nigerian people with the electoral process and make sure that adequate security is provided for them to register as voters, vote as eligible citizens of Nigeria and also keep away compromised and fraudulent elements from the electoral process.

It is in this context that the setting up of the Inter Agency Consultative Committee on Election Security by the Independent National Electoral Commission is a strategic move that may assist in plugging election security holes and reposition the security agencies for the challenges of the voters’ registration exercise and the elections in 2011.

Setting up the Inter Agency Consultative Committee on Election Security is a laudable move and if properly and transparently managed can provide the needed guidance and direction in the coordination of election security in Nigeria. The Consultative Committee must therefore get to work and fashion out a coordinated, tactical and strategic approach to the issue of election security in Nigeria.

The Inter Agency Consultative Committee must study and analyse previous security challenges that bedevilled the electoral process and resolve to put in place programs and policies to overcome the said challenges.

To function efficiently, professionally and ethically, the top hierarchy of the security agencies must resolve from the onset whether to serve the Nigerian nation or to serve the government in power at the federal, State and local government level.

Unless they make this pledge, they may undermine programs and policies initiated to deal with the challenge of election security in which case they will be working at cross purposes with the Inter Agency Committee.

The first challenge of the Inter Agency Consultative Committee on Election Security is the proper mapping out of electoral constituencies for purposes of providing adequate security. The security agencies must before the start of the voters registration exercise and the general elections visit the location of each registration centre and polling unit and assess the security implications of their location and accessibility.

The security agencies must analyse, document and put in measures to deal with security challenges in violence prone areas and flash points in the various communities. They can degrade security threats in those areas if they cannot rule out violence completely. This means that all the security agencies involved in providing election security must share information and not see their assignment as a continuation of inter agency competition.

The Inter Agency Consultative Committee must also be set up at the State and Local Government levels. Each Commissioner of Police must be aware of the number of security officers that are available for election duty. Each must know the number of Polling Units in each State and Local Government.

They must know the geographical and political challenges of each polling unit and determine the number of security agents that must be deployed to each polling unit. This will also ensure strategic distribution and deployment of security officers rather than have a situation where there will be high concentration of security agents in low density areas with no serious security challenges and little or no security in high density areas and in the rural areas where some political thugs hold sway.

The State Police Commissioners must also direct each Divisional Police Officer and the heads of other security agencies involved in election security to ensure that a copy of the result sheet signed by the Presiding Officers, the Party Agents, collation officers and security officials on duty are returned to a central processing and data unit immediately after the elections.

If elections did not take place in a particular polling unit, a Police Officer or other security agent involved in election security must report same and file at the central data unit on the conclusion of the elections.  This will enable the Inter Agency Consultative Committee at the Local Government levels know the security agents that did their jobs well and those that malingered and or compromised their assignment.

Keeping an accurate data of the results of elections and data on the conduct of elections will make it possible to detect and arrest fraudulent electoral officials that might have sold their polling units to desperate political opportunists. It will also be possible for the Police and other security agencies to be summoned to Court to produce the results in the polling units they were attached to.

The Electoral Management Body and the Inter Agency Consultative Committee must also decide and map out an e_payment strategy for the payment of the allowances of Officers on Electoral Duty. The complaints and complications arising from allegations of short_changing of Officers on electoral duty has dogged the work of security agencies and sometimes lowered the morale of such officers.

The Inter Agency Consultative Committee must work out before hand the amount due to each security officer on electoral duty and issue a slip that will enable them assess their allowances through the banks on conclusion of their assignment.

The Electoral Management Body must also be concerned with the issue of dry ration for security officers on electoral duty. Huge sums of money are budgeted for this and it never gets to the security agents on electoral duty. This leaves them vulnerable to politicians who cook good meals on Election Day and entice security agents with such food.

The other big issue is the mobility of security agents on Election Day.  We must never lose sight of the fact that the buses, the boats and the motorbikes that are hired on Election Day to convey election personnel and materials to remote areas are owned by individuals and groups. Sometimes the owners of these instruments of mobility are compromised by desperate politicians and they put the lives of innocent election officials and security agents at risk.

There is an urgent need for an independent, cost efficient and transparent transport system that insulates security officials from being compromised. The security agents must be in a position to get to their destinations without being compromised. The electoral management body must therefore determine the transport capacity of the various security agencies and government establishments and only compliment such with hired vehicles.

More importantly, the security agencies must be trained on the basic issues in the administration of elections. They must know the basic functions of the various officers engaged in election duty. They must also know about the offences created in the Electoral Act, 2010 and their duties and responsibilities when an electoral offence is committed. They must also be put through the Code of Conduct for Security Officers on Electoral Duty.

The Inter Agency Consultative Committee should also champion the passage of the Electoral Offences Commission Bill pending before the National Assembly. Such a Commission is necessary to stem acts of lawlessness and impunity and send a strong signal to all and sundry that the process of cleaning up the electoral process is underway.

Barrister Festus Okoye, Constitutional Lawyer & Executive , Director, Human Rights Monitor