How Human Errors Could Undermine Nigeria’s 2027 Elections — Festus Okoye

Human errors, poor understanding of electoral procedures and improper handling of result sheets could undermine the credibility of Nigeria’s 2027 general elections, a former National Commissioner of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Barrister Festus Okoye, has warned.

Okoye raised the concerns during a training workshop on election coverage organised by NEWSNGR for its reporters and editorial team ahead of the 2027 general elections.
He identified mistakes by election officials, particularly in the use of electoral technology and the completion of result sheets, as potential sources of discrepancies that could affect the electoral process.

He also explained the legal provisions governing the transmission and collation of results, the functions of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) and the INEC Election Results Viewing Portal (IReV), and the distinction between electronic results uploaded to the result viewing portal and the physical documents used to collate and declare election results.

Asked why INEC invested in BVAS and IReV despite the fact that results displayed on the portal are not the primary basis for collation and declaration, Okoye said BVAS performs several functions at different stages of the electoral process.

He explained that the device was first used during voter registration before being deployed for voter identification and accreditation on election day. It is also used to upload polling unit results after voting.

“It’s what I call a multifunctional gadget. It’s a multifunctional gadget. During voter registration, that is what we use,” he said.

He explained that during voter registration, the device is known as the INEC Voter Enrolment Device, while on election day, it is used for voter identification, verification and accreditation.

“On election day, we call it the BVAS. We use it for voter identification and verification. That is what we use in capturing fingerprints and capturing the facials,” he said.

According to him, the technology has helped prevent impersonation, double voting and multiple voting. He added that the same device is used to upload results after voting.

“That gadget has prevented impersonation, prevented double voting and multiple voting. Now, after elections, we use the same machine for what I call result upload. It’s a machine that does three things,” he stated.

Okoye said INEC engineers developed the device’s specifications before engaging manufacturers in China to produce it.

“That’s why we invest heavily in it because that machine was designed in INEC and manufactured in China. INEC engineers designed it and said this is what they want and went to China and said, please, can you fabricate a three-in-one machine for us?” he said.

He reiterated that the device was developed to perform three major functions, including voter enrolment, voter verification and accreditation, and result upload.

“That’s why we invest heavily on it. We use it for voter enrolment, it’s used for voter verification and accreditation, and also it’s used for result upload. That’s why we invest heavily on it,” he added.

INEC’s investment in the technology preceded the 2023 general elections, when the commission budgeted approximately N105.25bn for BVAS procurement and allocated about N117.1bn to electoral technology out of its N305bn budget for the elections. INEC reportedly acquired 200,000 BVAS devices for the exercise.

BVAS was introduced in 2021 and first piloted in the Isoko South I State Constituency bye-election in Delta State on September 11 that year. It was subsequently deployed alongside IReV in the November 2021 Anambra governorship election. IReV had earlier been used in the Edo and Ondo governorship elections in September and October 2020, respectively.

Okoye further drew attention to the legal provisions governing electronic transmission and the collation of results, citing Sections 60(3), 60(5) and 155 of the Electoral Act 2022, as amended.

He explained that Section 60(5) provides for the transmission of election results to the next level of collation after voting, while Section 155 defines transmission as the transfer of information manually or electronically.

He explained, “Section 60, Subsection 5, says that at the close of votes, the results of the election shall be transmitted to the next level of collation. Now, Section 155, which is the application section, says to transmit means to transfer manually or electronically.

“To transmit means to transfer either manually or electronically. So INEC has a discretion either to transfer results going to the collation centre manually or electronically.”

He distinguished these provisions from Section 60(3), which, according to him, provides for the electronic transmission of polling unit results to INEC.

Under the provision, he said, the presiding officer is required to electronically transmit polling unit results to IReV after Form EC8A has been signed and stamped. The form must also be countersigned by candidates or their polling agents present at the polling unit.

Okoye acknowledged that communication network failures could prevent electronic transmission, but maintained that the signed and stamped Form EC8A remains the primary document for the collation and declaration of results.

“Therefore, EC8A shall at all times remain the primary source of collation and declaration of results. At all times,” he said.

The distinction, he stressed, is important for journalists reporting election results and alleged irregularities. While IReV allows the public to view uploaded polling unit result sheets, the physical Form EC8A remains central to the formal collation process.

Okoye also explained how election results move from polling units to collation centres and how discrepancies are supposed to be examined.

Using the presidential election as an example, he said a collation centre could cover between 10 and 20 polling units. Presiding officers are expected to arrive with election documents, including Form EC8A, relevant collation forms, BVAS devices and, in some cases, copies of polling unit results held by party agents.

The collation officer examines the figures recorded on Form EC8A and transfers them to the appropriate collation form, which Okoye identified as Form EC8B.

Where a protest or allegation of discrepancies arises, the collation officer is expected to examine the relevant documents and compare the figures on Form EC8A with the accreditation data stored on the physical BVAS device.

The comparison helps establish whether the number of accredited voters corresponds with the information recorded on the polling unit result sheet. Where discrepancies are established, the accreditation data can be used to verify the figures and guide the necessary calculations.

Okoye identified mistakes by election personnel as another potential source of problems, saying inadequate understanding of electoral procedures and improper use of equipment could affect the accuracy of results.

He said election officials at different levels are drawn from across the country, including members of the National Youth Service Corps, students of federal tertiary institutions, civil servants and university lecturers.

Presiding officers and their assistants are deployed to polling units, while supervising presiding officers are drawn from ministries, departments and agencies of government. At registration area level, collation officers are often lecturers and professors from Nigerian universities.

According to Okoye, although presiding officers are trained before elections, mistakes can occur when officials do not fully understand the procedures or cannot operate the equipment properly.

He gave the example of a candidate recommending an individual who had not undergone the required training, potentially leaving the person unable to operate BVAS or complete election result forms correctly.