THERE are no easy answers to how the coming elections would be free and fair. The experiments the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, has been conducting since the 2011 elections are continuing. Issues are assuming complications that should not be round major elections within weeks of their conduct.

Will voters get their permanent voters’ cards, PVCs, before the elections? The question would be answered after the new deadline for their collections. Would INEC’s card readers, another major innovation in 2015, work? Would rigging be impossible or just more difficult? How would INEC gain the public’s confidence about its impartiality?

INEC maintains that “every vote would count, every vote would be counted, and every vote would be taken into account”, but what do these promises mean? INEC intends to fulfil the promises with the use of the PVC and card reader. “No-PVC-and-card-reader no-voting”, INEC, says.

With the system for maintaining the credibility of the elections fire-proof, as INEC insists, why are PVCs still stolen? Why are politicians, the supposed beneficiaries of the thefts, investing in unprofitable ventures? INEC should not be content with its position that the elections cannot be rigged. It should pay attention to the interest of politicians in acquiring PVCs meant for others.

Mike Igini, INEC Resident Electoral Commissioner in Edo State compares PVCs without card readers to used recharge cards. Among the multi-level security details of the card reader is that they are configured to specific polling booths, and cannot be used in another polling booth. The new system would be the game changer in the 2015 elections only if it works.

Scepticism is high because the system has not been used. INEC is notorious for attributing its lapses to endless experiments on improving the electoral processes?   Will the 2015 elections be another experiment? Who would understand INEC’s excuses?

All parties in the elections should spend next two weeks in ensuring that the elections are conducted with adequate certainties about their fairness. INEC should know that the tone of the campaigns already suggests that the contenders would not accept INEC’s inadequacies. Their positions would be understandable. INEC has since 2011 been preaching about the investments it has made in ensuring free and fair elections.

The PVC and card reader are at the apogee of the electronic architecture for free and fair elections. No matter how perfect they are, human beings will operate them. Suppose the technology fails? What options are available to INEC? Has INEC discussed the options and their implications with the contenders?

INEC should know that the elections are too contentious to be mired in INEC’s excuses. The time for excuses has run out. Does INEC know?