Cover StoryOpinionPerspectivePolitics

Amupitan: Electoral Reform Is the Key

7 Mins read

On Thursday last week, the Senate screened and confirmed President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s nominee for the position of the National Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Professor Joash Ojo Amupitan. The Law professor was drilled for more than two hours and asked cogent questions related to the assignment at hand. Though most of those questions should have been directed at Amupitan’s predecessor in office, Professor Mahmood Yakubu, the Law professor, showed himself at his diplomatic best, while at the same time showcasing his knowledge about the nation’s electoral process.

By Taiwo Adisa,

On Thursday last week, the Senate screened and confirmed President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s nominee for the position of the National Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Professor Joash Ojo Amupitan. The Law professor was drilled for more than two hours and asked cogent questions related to the assignment at hand. Though most of those questions should have been directed at Amupitan’s predecessor in office, Professor Mahmood Yakubu, the Law professor, showed himself at his diplomatic best, while at the same time showcasing his knowledge about the nation’s electoral process.

Amupitan was asked about the key challenges in the electoral process, especially the role of BVAS and IReV, as well as the complexities of election logistics. He minced no words, stating that only credible elections would promote public confidence in the nation’s democracy. He also touched on the possibility of deploying drones to handle election logistics so as to ensure that no voter is left behind during the polls.

“If elections are credible, it becomes easy to regain the confidence of the people,” Amupitan said. It was as if he was directly responding to the challenge of election apathy among Nigerians, which has seen voter turnout drop by as much as 26 per cent since 1999.

He addressed the questions of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BIVAS) and the INEC Result Viewing Portal (IRev), as well as the failure of these two innovations to deliver electoral security in the 2023 elections. The new INEC Chairman was right to say that he would audit the situation, to be able to tell the capacity of the nation’s infrastructure and the electoral commission to deliver on the innovations.

Hear him: “A lot of people did not know until the Supreme Court came out to say that BVAS wasn’t a mandatory collation system. It was supposed to guarantee some checks and balances. The glitches during the presidential election eroded the credibility. I will need to get there and audit the system to know whether we have the capacity. I must also consult with other stakeholders like the Nigerian Communications Commission.”

He also deployed his knowledge of the governmental system when he told Senator Abdul Ningi, who raised questions on technological inputs in the electoral process, by saying: “On the issue of court decisions and technological systems, there has been confusion over certain innovations introduced by INEC, such as the electronic collation system. The Supreme Court has clarified some of these matters. When we assume office, we will assess the infrastructure on the ground, review the technology, and adopt the best approach that enhances transparency and credibility in elections.”

The new INEC helmsman also left us with some soundbites that we can challenge him with in the months ahead, when he said his watchword would be to ensure no voter is left behind. “On the issue of security and logistics, I recognize that these are major challenges due to the size and diversity of our country. We will work closely with the Joint Committee on Election Security to enhance protection of materials, personnel, and voters — especially in high-risk areas.

“We will also invest more in logistics and technology to ensure that every part of Nigeria is adequately reached. If necessary, we can deploy innovations — such as drones and other secure means — to guarantee that election materials reach their destinations. No voter will be left behind. That will be our guiding principle,” he said.

The professor also mentioned the need to set up an electoral offences commission as one of the key issues on his agenda. But he touched on a critical point when he said that he would review the infrastructure on the ground when he assumes office. And that is why I believed that some of the questions put to Amupitan should have been asked Yakubu, who ran INEC for ten years before proceeding on terminal leave. Those questions should have formed part of NASS’s oversight on INEC before Yakubu’s departure.

I say this because the time Amupitan needs to review and audit the system is not there at all. This is October 2025. If we go by the dictates of the Electoral Act 2022, the process for the emergence of candidates for the 2027 elections should start early in the new year. And if the National Assembly members can pull through their new plan to hold presidential and gubernatorial elections more than 180 days before the next swearing-in, thus making November 2026 the most feasible date, preparations are already getting late for INEC. Remember that the candidates for presidential elections of 2023 election emerged between late May and early June 2022. That is almost a clear year ahead of the elections. What all these indicate is that the luxury of time is not there at all.

Now, we should be asking ourselves why the National Assembly always waits until the last minute before electoral act amendments are passed. The lawmakers kept everyone guessing ahead of the 2023 elections, and you could see a party like the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) going to the May 2022 convention with a hurriedly interpreted version of the Electoral Act. The All Progressives Congress (APC), which delayed a bit, was able to expand its delegate system. It has always been the case that the Senate and the House of Representatives want to wait until the last minute before amendments to the electoral act are passed. That is somewhat absurd. An Electoral Act that would usher in a major election should have been test-run with mid-session elections or byelections to enable us to isolate the challenges that might emanate.

The lawmakers perhaps failed to acknowledge that the bulk of the ball is in their court when they fired some questions at Amupitan. These are people who have participated in elections at different levels, asking a university don what he would do to better the nation’s electoral system. They forgot that he is a man who has not operated any electoral act before and is more or less a greenhorn on the job.

Rather than toss the ball to Amupitan’s court, I think the lawmakers must admit that they have wasted too much time delaying the 2025 Electoral Act Amendment bill. You even wonder why the NASS Committees on Electoral Matters were doing immediately after the ruling of the Supreme Court on the 2023 presidential election, which defined the roles of BVAS and IReV among the technological innovations INEC brought into the electoral process in 2023. I cannot account for the long silence from the NASS committees all through 2024 and for most of 2025. And so, we have to wait until the last quarter of the year before we start struggling to pass the Electoral Act Amendment Bill.

Instead of beating about the bush on this matter, let us tell the NASS members that the most important amendment in the Electoral Act should be the inclusion of BVAS and IReV as electoral legal tenders. The should be mandatory election collation tools. The National Assembly must make it mandatory for records on BVAS to count while a candidate is challenging the election data. If there is no correlation between accredited voters and total votes cast, then it should be known that such an election is null and void. The same should go for IRev. Any election result that cannot be uploaded to the portal should not count. Every electoral officer must be compelled to stay on the network for as long as possible until the election results are uploaded. There should be no crime in combining the manual and electronic systems effectively. I know several lawmakers at the state and national level who won elections in the 2023 process because the results from polling stations in their constituencies were uploaded on IReV. It means that only those who don’t have the backing of their constituencies would be afraid of BVAS and IReV.

Besides, there is also the need to take away the power to declare winners of an election from the courts. Winners should only emerge through the votes of the people. A situation where the courts are allowed to determine the winners of an election because of alleged irregularities or violence shouldn’t hold anymore. If there is reported violence in an area, the results should be put on hold until a makeup election is held to afford the people of the area the opportunity to cast their ballots for the preferred candidate.

Democracy is supposed to be a government of the people. By all intents and purposes, it should emphasise the rule of the majority of the people, not some judges of the election tribunal, the Court of Appeal, or the Supreme Court. No matter the level of irregularities, elections should be repeated until sanity prevails at the polls. I agree with Amupitan when he said that only credible polls can restore confidence in the democratic process. If you are close to the grassroots, you will already know the extent of the loss of confidence in the democratic process by the man on the street. You’ve definitely heard of the dibo ko se obe (vote and cook a pot of soup) saga, which has now engulfed most states of the South. In the North, the issue was about underage voters; now we’ve added the merchandising of Permanent Voters’ Cards (PVCs) to the ugly trend. If a leader emerges from a discredited election, his loyalty would never be to the people, who are the custodians of power. He would trust in those who manipulated the process to pave the way for him or her. With that, our democracy suffers, development is arrested, and we keep counting years of underdevelopment. Every independence anniversary is devoted to lamentations of missed opportunities and unreached potential. Nigeria is a crawling giant at 65. May we not have it remain a toddler at 100.

   

About author
Time Nigeria is a modern and general interest Magazine with its Headquarters in Abuja. The Magazine has a remarkable difference in editorial philosophy and goals, it adheres strictly to the ethics of Journalism by using the finest ethos of the profession to promote peace among citizens; identifying and harnessing the nation’s vast resources; celebrating achievements of government agencies, individuals, groups and corporate organizations and above all, repositioning Nigeria for the needed growth and development. Time Nigeria gives emphasis to places and issues that have not been given adequate attention by others. The Magazine is national in outlook and is currently being read and patronized both in print and on our vibrant and active online platform (www.timenigeria.com).
Articles
Related posts
All The NewsCover StoryNewsPolitics

Musa Tsoken Congratulates Kalu on Daily Times’ Lawmaker of the Year Award

1 Mins read
The National Coordinator of the Asiwaju Again Renewed Hope Support Initiative 2027 and National President of the APC Initiative for Good Governance…
Abuja FileDevelopmentEconomyEnergyFinanceInside LagosOpinionPerspective

The Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: Why Capital Still Fails to Become Infrastructure

6 Mins read
  By Chidi Nwafor  In October 2023, a Gulf sovereign wealth fund quietly closed a $2 billion allocation to global infrastructure, earmarked in part for emerging-market energy and transport assets. The announcement drew the usual applause: another sign, commentators said, that institutional capital was finally waking up to the infrastructure opportunity in the Global South. Eighteen months later, less than a tenth of that allocation had actually left the fund’s balance sheet. Not because the mandate had changed. Not because the fund had lost appetite. According to two people familiar with the portfolio, the constraint was simpler and more uncomfortable: there were not enough investable projects to put the money into. This is not a story about a reluctant investor. It is a story about capital that wants to move, cannot find enough places willing and able to receive it in a form it can underwrite, and quietly waits instead. Multiply that fund by the hundreds of pension schemes, sovereign wealth vehicles, commercial banks and infrastructure funds now carrying dedicated allocations for emerging-market infrastructure, and a pattern emerges that rarely makes it into a headline: the world is not short of capital for infrastructure. It has capital in historic abundance, sitting adjacent to a historic infrastructure gap, unable to cross the distance between the two. The Comfortable Explanation  The explanation on offer at every major infrastructure summit is a familiar one. Global infrastructure investment needs run into the tens of trillions of dollars over the coming decade; committed capital falls well short; therefore, the problem is one of insufficient funding, and the solution is more of it: more pledges, more blended-finance facilities, more climate funds, more multilateral capital increases. It is a comfortable explanation because it assigns responsibility clearly to governments who under-fund, institutions who under-commit, and it offers a clean remedy: raise more. It is also, on close inspection, not what the evidence shows. Pension funds globally hold trillions in assets under management with explicit infrastructure allocations that remain structurally underweight, not because trustees have rejected the asset class but because deal flow meeting their risk and governance thresholds has not materialised at the pace their mandates assume. Sovereign wealth funds report the same pattern. Commercial banks with dedicated project finance desks describe pipelines that look full at the term-sheet stage and thin dramatically by financial close. Development finance institutions, whose entire purpose is to absorb risk that commercial capital will not, routinely report that their binding constraint is not capital adequacy but the volume of bankable transactions their teams can originate and structure in a given year. None of this fits the scarcity narrative. All of it fits a different one. Availability Is Not Deployability  Capital availability and capital deployability are not the same condition, and the conflation of the two is doing real damage to how the world thinks about the infrastructure gap. Availability asks whether money exists somewhere with a mandate that could, in principle, be pointed at infrastructure. Deployability asks something much narrower and much harder: whether a specific project, at a specific moment, has been engineered, structured, documented and de-risked to the point where an investment committee can approve it without exception. The first condition is met, overwhelmingly, across nearly every category of capital that matters to infrastructure. The second is met by only a small fraction of the projects competing for it. The result is a market that looks, from the outside, like a financing gap, and functions, from the inside, like a conversion problem: an abundance of capital on one side, an abundance of infrastructure need on the other, and an underbuilt set of mechanisms in between capable of turning one into the other at any meaningful scale. Where the Conversion Breaks  The break does not happen at the ends of the process. It happens in the middle, in the unglamorous sequence of work that turns a plausible concept into an instrument a fiduciary can sign. A promising transmission project needs a feasibility study rigorous enough to survive institutional scrutiny rather than optimistic enough to attract early interest. It needs offtake arrangements that hold up under real counterparty and currency risk, not the counterparty risk assumed in a base case. It needs environmental and social documentation calibrated to the standards of the institutions being asked to fund it, not the standards of the jurisdiction hosting it. It needs a legal and commercial structure that allocates risk in ways a commercial lender, not only a development financier, will accept. It needs a sponsor capable of executing what has been proposed, not merely capable of proposing it. Each of these is ordinary project finance discipline. None of it is exotic, and in mature infrastructure markets it happens as a matter of course, absorbed into systems built over decades: specialist advisers, standard-form contracts, established procurement norms, deep pools of transaction expertise. What is missing in the markets where the infrastructure gap is largest is not the standard itself but the machinery that meets it. Projects arrive at investment committees with ambition intact and preparation incomplete, and that gap is treated, again and again, as an individual project’s failure rather than what it actually is: a structural absence in the systems responsible for producing investable transactions at scale. The Missing Middle  This is the Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: the institutional architecture that sits between capital that wants to move and infrastructure that needs building, and whose incompleteness explains far more of the global infrastructure gap than any shortfall in committed funds. It consists of project preparation facilities able to fund feasibility and structuring work before commercial viability has been proven. Transaction advisers capable of building deals that satisfy development mandates and commercial return thresholds at once, rather than treating the two as separate constituencies to be managed sequentially. Risk-sharing and guarantee instruments that convert political, regulatory and currency risk into something a commercial balance sheet can underwrite. Aggregation platforms that bundle smaller, individually sub-scale projects into portfolios large enough to justify institutional transaction costs. Standardised documentation that reduces the bespoke legal cost of every new deal. And coordination across ministries, regulators and financiers robust enough that a technically sound project does not die in bureaucratic sequencing after the money has already been found. None of these are new ideas in isolation. What is missing is their assembly into a coherent system, deliberately funded and institutionally accountable, rather than scattered across donor-funded pilots that end when the grant does. The African Dimension  Africa makes this dynamic unusually visible, and consequently offers an unusually clear opportunity to correct it. The continent’s infrastructure financing need, by any measure, is vast. Less understood is that the shortfall is disproportionately one of preparation rather than capital. Nigerian gas-to-power, off-grid solar and mini-grid developers have each demonstrated that individual projects can clear the bankability bar; what has not emerged is systemic pipeline scale, a steady stream of comparably prepared projects large enough to absorb the capital already circling the sector. The pattern repeats, with local variation, from grid infrastructure in East Africa to transport corridors in West Africa. Interested capital is rarely the scarce input. Investment-ready projects are. The Global Comparison  Mature markets solved this problem gradually and mostly invisibly, through decades of institution-building that predates the current infrastructure conversation: specialist project finance units inside banks, standardised PPP frameworks, established regulatory playbooks, deep benches of transaction lawyers and engineers who move between deals rather than between one-off assignments. Emerging and frontier markets are not being asked to meet a lower standard. They are being asked to meet the same standard without having built the same machinery, and then being told, when deals fail to close, that the problem is insufficient funding….
Cover StoryNewsSports

Union Bank, AIICO Multishield, Checkers Custard, Others Back 5th Cycling Lagos

2 Mins read
Union Bank of Nigeria Plc, AIICO Multishield, Checkers Custard and other corporate organisations have thrown their weight behind the 5th Cycling Lagos,…
Stay on the loop!

Subscribe to our latest news.

Leave a Reply

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com