INEC's Trust Issues: Understanding the Electoral Crisis

Trust cannot be restored just by using slogans. It won’t come back just because a new chairman is in place. Trust will only return when INEC follows the law, treats all parties fairly, communicates openly, uses technology properly, and conducts elections so transparently that even those who lose will find it hard to question the process.

The biggest danger to Nigerian democracy now is not a lack of understanding of elections, but the growing belief that elections do not matter. What many call voter apathy is actually a smart response. When people believe their votes count, they feel hopeful. But when they see potential for manipulation, they pull away, not because they dislike democracy, but because they feel frustrated and abandoned.

INEC has the tough task of restoring trust in elections. The Commission is more than just a body that manages elections; it gives legitimacy to democracy. How it behaves determines if people see elections as valid or just empty events. When INEC is trusted, winners are accepted and losers concede peacefully. But when trust is low, every move is viewed with suspicion, and results can lead to conflict.

To understand this, we must look at the 2023 elections. That election was supposed to show a new level of transparency, using the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System and the INEC Result Viewing Portal. INEC promised Nigerians that technology would help reduce manipulation. This raised hopes, especially among young voters who wanted to see real respect for their votes. But on election day, the promises fell flat. Presidential results were not uploaded in real time as promised, and INEC later said an “HTTP error” caused the delay, which did not help the situation.

The issue was not just about failed technology; it was about lost trust. INEC’s commitment to transparency was vital, and when those promises were broken, it hurt the institution badly. The European Union Election Observation Mission said INEC’s failures damaged trust and called for clearer laws, transparent appointments, and real-time results publication.

Once trust is deeply broken, it cannot be restored by statements alone. Only consistent and transparent actions can start to fix it. So, the 2027 elections will not be just another event; they will be a test of INEC’s credibility. They will also impact the future of democracy in Nigeria.

Professor Joash Ojo Amupitan was appointed in 2025 to bring about a fresh start. Although he was initially seen as unbiased, new leadership alone cannot erase old doubts. Real change comes from consistent actions, not just good resumes.

Concerns about the new chairman spread fast due to social media claims. INEC investigated and cleared him, but the incident showed how easily misinformation spreads when trust is low. If trust were stronger, the issue would have been resolved quickly.

The bigger worry is INEC’s handling of party affairs, like the leadership dispute in the ADC. INEC pointed to court orders, but critics said there was interference. In a democracy, the process must be fair and visible, not just claimed. Recent events show that public trust is still fragile.

The problem is especially clear in how INEC oversees party primaries and internal party matters. Four key issues need urgent attention.

First, there are ongoing worries about possible biased appointments. Elections are run by people, not just rules. If the resident electoral commissioners (REC), electoral officers, and ICT staff are seen as politically biased, the entire process is in danger. International IDEA has pointed out ongoing problems with appointments since 2015, which worsened in 2023. For instance, Osun legislators have claimed bias in selecting officials for the 2026 election. Whether true or not, these claims show fears that the integrity of elections can be compromised even before votes are cast.

The structural problem runs deeper. Nigeria’s appointment process makes INEC vulnerable to distrust. The President picks the INEC Chairman, needing Senate approval. Both the executive and legislative branches are run by politicians who have a stake in election results. Even if a chairman is capable, the way they get the job creates a trust deficit from the start.

Next is the issue of strategic redeployments. Moving key electoral officials close to major elections, especially amid claims of political pressure, can hurt confidence in the electoral process. INEC may have its reasons for moving staff, but in a climate of distrust, timing matters. A lawful redeployment can still harm neutrality if it looks politically motivated. The Commission must realize that being unclear about such decisions is no longer acceptable. Every important staff change before sensitive elections must be explained clearly and openly.

Third is INEC’s attempt to set timelines for party primaries that the court found inconsistent with the Electoral Act 2026. In May 2026, the Federal High Court in Abuja threw out INEC’s timetable for primaries and candidate nominations, saying INEC could not legally shorten the time given to parties for submissions, withdrawals, and substitutions. This was not just a small issue; it struck at the heart of political participation. An electoral body must regulate the game, not change the rules to favor established parties over new ones.

While administrative ease is important, democracy serves citizens, not just administrators. A timetable that rushes parties into primaries can create crises, lead to more lawsuits, weaken party democracy, and stifle reform efforts before voting starts. Efficiency should not come at the cost of exclusion.

This is why the debate over INEC’s 2027 timetable is crucial. The Movement for Credible Election has warned that INEC’s appeal against a court ruling nullifying part of its timetable could lower public trust further. The core problem remains: an electoral body must not seem to limit political participation. INEC should avoid timelines that seem to restrict involvement. While administrative ease is necessary, it must not overshadow democratic inclusion.

Fourth is the perception of selective urgency. Opposition parties often say INEC acts quickly when their issues arise but is slower with problems from the ruling party. INEC might deny this, and sometimes it may have legal reasons. But the fact that this perception persists shows a failure in governance. An umpire cannot seem rushed toward one side and slow toward the other. Neutrality is not just a legal requirement; it is a democratic duty that must be seen and felt.

The underlying problem is still serious. Nigeria’s appointment system makes INEC open to suspicion. The President nominates the INEC Chairman, needing the Senate’s approval. Both the executive and legislative branches are run by politicians with interests in election results. Even a capable chairman must deal with a trust deficit from the start. Until Nigeria creates a more transparent, multi-stakeholder appointment process, every INEC leadership will start under a cloud.

The Electoral Act 2026 has made some progress. President Tinubu signed the amended law in February, which gives legal weight to electronic result transmission and the IReV issue that angered many after 2023. But Nigerians have learned a hard lesson: technology cannot fix democracy if the will to do so is weak. Machines can collect, send, and show information. They cannot create integrity. If the law still allows vague exceptions like "communication failure," then while it may limit manipulation, it does not prevent it completely. Legal experts have warned that unclear definitions of communication failure can cause problems in election disputes.

This is why INEC’s crisis cannot be solved with another portal, device, chairman, or promise. Credibility must be built well before election day. It is built in how ad hoc staff are hired, how party disputes are resolved, how court rulings are followed, how procurement is handled, how technology is tested, how failures are explained, and how rules are applied fairly. Most importantly, it is built when INEC shows it fears the law more than powerful politicians.

The truth is this: Nigerians have good reasons to view INEC with careful skepticism, not blind trust. This skepticism is not against democracy; it demands that democracy lives up to its name. Afrobarometer reported before the 2023 election that only 23 percent of Nigerians trusted INEC "somewhat" or "a lot."

Political parties also have their responsibilities. They cannot break their own rules, sabotage their primaries, create endless internal conflicts, and then blame INEC for the results. Civil society must stay alert without taking sides. The media must investigate without spreading falsehoods. Citizens must remain hopeful without giving up their right to demand better.

But the bigger responsibility lies with INEC because it is the referee. If the referee is trusted, the game can survive tough competition. If the referee is not trusted, even a fair decision will be seen as cheating.

The honest truth is this: Nigerians have solid reasons to approach INEC with careful skepticism instead of blind trust. This skepticism is not against democracy; it is a call for democracy to be true to its promise. Afrobarometer found that only 23 percent of Nigerians trusted INEC "somewhat" or "a lot" before the 2023 elections. A Commission heading into 2027 with such a lack of trust is not facing a simple PR issue. It is facing a serious institutional crisis.

So the question is not just whether Nigerians should trust INEC. The more challenging question is whether INEC is ready to earn that trust before 2027.

Trust cannot be restored just by slogans. It won't come back with just a new chairman. It won't come back with just new technology. It will only return when INEC follows the law without pride, treats all parties fairly, communicates openly, uses technology properly, and runs elections so clearly that even those who lose can’t deny the process’s integrity.

Nigeria does not need a perfect electoral body. No democracy has one. But Nigeria urgently needs an electoral body that is truly neutral, makes reliable promises, and acts in a way that assures citizens that their votes are more powerful than manipulation.

For INEC, 2027 is more than just another election. It is a chance for redemption. For Nigeria, it might mean the difference between a lively democracy and a tired ritual.

The country is not asking INEC for miracles. It is asking for honesty, fairness, competence, and courage. That should not be too much to ask from the body entrusted with the rights of over 200 million people.