By Emeka Umeagbalasi

On March 3, 2011, the Independent National Electoral Commission,INEC released the “final figure of 73.58million registered voters” as “authentic” national register of voters for Nigeria. The Commission had earlier, released the “provisional” figure of 67.7 million registered voters. Since the “final” figure of 73.58 million registered voters was released and certified by the Commission, independent experts have continued to pick holes in the authenticity of the figure with respect to demographic reflection of the figures. The main criticism trailing the release of the “final” figure was that the Commission released to the public a bogus, inflated, raw, unprocessed, unverified, disputable and questionable as well as unscientific registration figures in the form of a “new National Register of Voters” to be used in the April 2011 general elections.

For instance, the released and displayed figures represent unprocessed registration data which has not been subjected to the compulsory process of “aggregation and vetting”, also called Automated Fingerprint Identification System, AFIS. The AFIS process is meant to verify the data of voters downloaded from the Direct Data Capture, DDC machine. When AFIS audit is done as required by the voters’ registration process, each Resident Electoral Commissioner is supposed to come up with three sets of voters’ register: 1. Valid Register, which is a register of voters with proper registration having all the correct biometrics in place. 2. AO_Valid Register, which is a register of purported voters whose fingerprints and other biometrics were not captured during the registration exercise. 3. Invalid Register, which is a register of those voters identified to have done multiple registrations. The Commission appears to have presented to the Nigerian public the AO_ Valid Register and the Invalid Register and jettisoned the AFIS_processed valid register.

Generally, AFIS is meant to identify and weed out those who fraudulently engaged in multiple registrations and other fraudulent registration processes. When AFIS process is successfully applied, the figures usually go down after fraudulent figures are weeded or cleaned up. In cross River State, where the exercise (AFIS) was successfully carried out, courtesy of the Resident Electoral Commissioner, Mr Mike Igini, the initial raw and unprocessed figures were reportedly brought down from about 1.7million to 1.148million. Unfortunately, we reliably gathered that other than Cross River State, figures from other states (including Anambra State) and the FCT are raw, unverified, incorrect and inflated.

It was observed that during the exercise across the country, some registrants registered as many as seven times and pictures were downloaded from almanacs and internets to fill the blank spaces that are supposed to contain their real pictures. The intents of these false voters’ figures are to be purchased by corrupt and desperate politicians from some corrupt INEC officials to rig them through in the forthcoming April general elections.

What the Commission seems to have done is akin to an intelligence collector who collects millions of raw data without subjecting them to critical intelligence analysis for them to be an intelligence product, or a scientific inquirer who stops at the hypotheses level. Had the Commission’s “provisional” figure of 67.7million registered voters been subjected to the Automated Fingerprint Identification System or AFIS process, which is a post DDC machine process, dutifully and legally required of the Commission, the figures (67.7m) would have been brought down drastically, and not the addition of about 6million voters seemingly imported from God knows where.

Also going by the Commission’s figure representations geopolitically, Northwest is credited with highest registered voters, from “provisional” figure of 18.95m to 19.8m, Southwest came second with “provisional” 14.298,356 to 14.296,163, Northeast (third) with “provisional” figure of 10.03m to “final” figure of 10.74m, North_central (fourth) with “provisional” figure of 7.67m to “final” figure of 10.68m, South_south (fifth) with “provisional” figure of 8.93m to “final” figure of 9.4m, and Southeast (least) with “provisional” figure of 7.02m to “final” figure of 7.57m. These figures so allocated are demographically and scientifically contestable. They may have been influenced by political and ill factors. The case of Niger, Kaduna, Benue and Bauchi States is so glaring. For instance, Niger State was “provisionally” credited with 721,485 registered voters and “finally” credited with 2.175million registered voters; Kaduna State “provisionally” had 2,565million but was “finally” credited with 3.905million registered voters, Benue State was “provisionally” credited with 1.415million registered voters, but was “finally” allocated 2.390million; Bauchi State had a “provisional” figure of 1,835 million registered voters and “final” figure of 2.523million. That is to say that Niger State recorded an extra allocation of 1.42million; Kaduna 335,000; Benue 980,000; and Bauchi about 700,000.

We strongly believe that while the provisional figure of 67.7m may have contained raw and unprocessed voters’ registration data originated from registration centers from the said 132,000 registration units nationwide, the about 6m added at eleventh hour may have originated from sources other than the former. This may be akin to situations that marked the post 2006 census exercise in Nigeria, where some, if not many State governing authorities reportedly went to the NPC for bonuses for their State populations, for purposes of increased revenues and other collective social benefits. We may not be surprised if similar bonuses have been asked for and granted in this respect, for political reasons.

Demographically speaking, the “final” figures released by the Commission woefully failed to take into account of the fact that those within the age of 18_75 are second minority after those within the category of senescence (aged) (75years and above). And those between hours_old and 17years are generally in majority especially in developing societies like Nigeria with high birth rates. That is to say that those under 18years usually constitute about 60%; those between 18years and 75years constitute about 35% and the senescence (75years and above) constitutes about 5% in developing countries or about 10% in developed societies.

But in the Commission’s “final” figures, the reverse was the case. By projecting the Nigeria’s registered voters as being 73.5million of her estimated population of 150million, Your Commission magisterially asserted that the active adult population is about 60%. This is totally fallacious and unascertainable, more so when the exercise was voluntary, meaning that if 67.7million people registered, there is likelihood that about 10% of this figure may not register as a result of self disenfranchisement or circumstantial disenfranchisement. So, in any way a critically observable mind looks at the Commission’s “final” figures, they are grossly faulty and demographically untenable.