By Kayode  Idowu

Some sections of the Nigerian public in recent times have shown intense interest in the structure and personnel composition of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and on-going effort by the Commission to shape up for optimum discharge of its mandate.

This interest is not exactly isolated. It drapes against the backdrop of a notion that the Commission’s manpower have a way of influencing its core task of conducting elections and, thereby, distort the popular will of the electorate.

The notion was not helped by the huge credibility deficit of the 2007 general elections; even though the outcomes of the 2011 general elections and other elections conducted by the present leadership of the Commission since then have effectively proved that notion wrong.

The media were awash with sometimes weird tales of goings-on within the Commission. There were reports of imminent shake-ups and redeployments in INEC that were at variance with what the Commission was really up to. Some of the reports were downright farcical.

Perhaps the most bizarre was a newspaper advertorial by a faceless group called ‘Election Integrity Network’ alleging regional domination of INEC. The advertorial, which has been issued by the group twice in selected newspapers, drew strength from a report in the July 02, 2012 edition of a magazine which had alleged sundry tendencies in INEC – the most acute, according to the magazine, of which is a purported design by the present leadership to foist northern domination on the Commission.

True, INEC is restructuring; but not because of any regional domination or fundamental defect in the morality of the Commission’s personnel as presently composed. Its Chairman, Professor Attahiru Jega, made this clear in a recent interview with the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN)

The Chairman particularly dispelled fears of wild-cat job displacements.

Those alleging ethnic domination in INEC miss the point.  Professor Jega was appointed in 2010 by Mr. President, with the endorsement of the National Council of State and the clearance of the Senate, at a time when a Secretary tenured from the previous dispensation in the Commission had been in office. That tenure needs to run its course, otherwise there will be needless complications in service rules and dislocation of internal cohesion within the Commission.

It is also alleged that there is regional disproportion in the chairmanship of INEC committees by the National Commissioners. That, simply, betrays grievous ignorance of legal provisions setting up the Commission and governing its operations.

Section 14 (1) (a) of Part 1 (F) of the Third Schedule of the 1999 Federal Constitution (as amended) provides that The Commission shall comprise the following members: (a) a Chairman, who shall be the Chief Electoral Commissioner; and (b) twelve other members to be known as National Electoral Commissioners.

In practice, the 12 National Commissioners are appointed by Mr. President on geo-political basis: two from each of the six geo-political zones making up the country. Also, Section 7 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as gazetted) provides that “the Commission may appoint one or more committees to carry out any of its functions under this Act.”

The Commission, for operational convenience, therefore, created committees; and the Chairman as well as all the National Commissioners head one committee or the other based on personal expertise, previous experience and ultimate responsibility.

Strictly speaking, policy-making in INEC is the constitutional responsibility of the Commission as comprised by the Chairman and 12 National Commissioners. But the ethnic campaigners seem to presume this function applies at the directorate level, hence they have made capital of alleged domination of the headship of INEC’s departments and directorates by the North.

There are indeed 67 directors in the Commission, and the distribution on the basis of state of origin is as follows: Benue (9), Anambra (9), Imo (4), Delta (3), Cross River (3), Plateau (3), Akwa Ibom (3), Abia (3), Kebbi (3), Edo (3), Niger (2), Kaduna (2), Zamfara (2), Bayelsa (2), Lagos (2), Bauchi (2), Borno (2), Sokoto (1), Enugu (1), Kano (1), Kogi (1), Katsina (1), Osun (1), Gombe (1), Ogun (1), Jigawa (1) and Yobe (1). Talking about ‘strategic’ departments if there was one, none could be more so in INEC’s work than the ICT and Operations departments, and both presently are headed by South-Easterners. So, what’s the argument, please?

It is no doubt important that a nationally strategic organisation like INEC must be sensitive to the Federal Character factor. But if it must attain unto the vision of the present leadership and satisfy the yearnings of most Nigerians, merit, experience and expertise, not petty ethnic considerations, must be the primary criteria for attaining and holding key offices in the Commission. That is where the on-going restructuring is headed. And that is why the ethnic campaign is needlessly distracting.

Idowu is Chief Press Secretary to INEC Chairman