INEC’s Preliminary Register That Is Not Final or the Public Outcry-Attracted AI-Generated Register Still Object of Distrust

By ABANIKANDA OLUMORO (UK)

Since AI is still based on human input and considering the huge amount of investment in human resources to carryout the registration process, many are questioning why relying on an automated system in generating voter registration in handling a process that will eventually require human physical verification during accreditation.

Nigeria cannot afford to approach the 2027 general elections with an electoral system that inspires suspicion rather than confidence. At a time when political parties are intensifying preparations for the next presidential election, the credibility of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the integrity of the voters’ register and the transparency of the electoral process must remain matters of urgent national concern.

The controversy surrounding the preliminary voters’ register, questions about the technology used in its preparation and public concerns over possible irregularities present an important test for the electoral umpire. Whether the register is preliminary, undergoing verification or awaiting final publication, INEC must recognise that public confidence cannot be demanded; it must be earned through transparency, accountability and verifiable evidence.

More importantly, allegations that the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) could benefit from, influence or collude with electoral authorities to manipulate the 2027 elections must not be dismissed with political rhetoric. Such allegations require credible investigation, documentary evidence where available, and clear answers from the institutions responsible for protecting the people’s votes.

However, it is equally important to distinguish between established facts, public suspicions and allegations that have yet to be substantiated. Accusing a political party or an electoral institution of electoral fraud without sufficient evidence can undermine public confidence just as surely as concealing genuine irregularities. Nigeria deserves the truth, not propaganda from any political camp.

A PRELIMINARY REGISTER IS NOT THE FINAL REGISTER

INEC must understand that describing a voters’ register as preliminary does not automatically resolve the concerns surrounding its accuracy.

A preliminary register is ordinarily subject to verification, correction and objection before the electoral authority concludes the process. It may contain errors that require correction, including duplicated entries, inaccurate personal information, omissions or other inconsistencies. The existence of such errors does not, by itself, establish deliberate manipulation.

Nevertheless, the public has every right to demand answers about the origin of questionable entries, the methods used to compile the register, the safeguards against duplication and the procedures for correcting mistakes.

If the commission believes that its preliminary register is accurate, it should demonstrate this through transparent verification procedures. If discrepancies have been identified, it should explain their nature, disclose the corrective measures being undertaken and provide a timetable for completing the exercise.

The public must not be expected to accept official assurances without sufficient opportunity to examine the process.

Nigeria’s electoral history has repeatedly demonstrated the importance of ensuring that the register reflects eligible voters rather than administrative convenience or partisan calculations. An inaccurate register can disenfranchise eligible citizens, create opportunities for unlawful voting and provoke disputes over the legitimacy of election results.

The central question, therefore, is not simply whether the register is preliminary or final. It is whether INEC can demonstrate that every stage of its preparation complies with the law and that every eligible Nigerian has a fair opportunity to participate in the elections.

THE AI-GENERATED REGISTER CONTROVERSY

The suggestion that a register attracting public criticism may have been generated or manipulated through artificial intelligence raises additional questions that INEC must address. Since AI is still based on human input and considering the huge amount of investment in human resources to carryout the registration process, many are questioning why relying on an automated system in generating voter registration in handling a process that will eventually require human physical verification during accreditation.

Artificial intelligence is increasingly being used in data processing, pattern recognition and the detection of inconsistencies. Properly deployed, these technologies can help electoral authorities identify duplicated records, detect anomalies and improve administrative efficiency.

However, technology can also introduce risks when its processes are inadequately supervised, its outputs are not independently verified or its use is concealed from the public.

The critical issue is whether INEC has used any artificial intelligence system in preparing, processing, cleaning or validating the disputed register and, if so, what safeguards were applied.

A register produced with the assistance of automated technology is not necessarily fraudulent. Equally, the mere assertion that a register is computer-generated does not establish its credibility.

INEC should therefore clarify the specific technologies employed, the functions they performed, the human oversight involved and the procedures used to verify the accuracy of the resulting records.

Where allegations of AI-generated entries have been made, the commission should invite qualified independent experts to examine the relevant evidence, subject to appropriate protections for voters’ personal information.

The objective should be to establish the truth rather than to defend technology, protect officials or embarrass political opponents.

Without such clarification, public suspicion may continue to grow, creating an atmosphere in which even legitimate electoral procedures are interpreted through the lens of partisan distrust.

THE DANGER OF A POSSIBLE APC-INEC COLLUSION

The most serious concern surrounding the 2027 elections is the possibility that electoral institutions could be subjected to political pressure or that their procedures could be manipulated to favour the ruling party.

The APC, as the party controlling the Federal Government, occupies a position of political advantage. That advantage, however, must never translate into control over the electoral umpire or the processes through which Nigerians choose their leaders.

INEC’s independence is fundamental to the credibility of the elections. The commission must be seen to operate impartially, not merely claim to be independent.

There is currently no basis, from the allegations alone, to conclude that APC and INEC have entered into a proven arrangement to rig the 2027 elections. Nevertheless, the seriousness of public concerns makes it necessary for the commission to demonstrate that its decisions are insulated from partisan influence.

The danger is not confined to the possibility of actual collusion. Even the appearance of political interference can weaken confidence in the electoral process.

If electoral decisions consistently appear to favour the ruling party, citizens may begin to believe that their votes have become secondary to arrangements made by political elites. Such a perception could discourage participation, deepen political divisions and undermine the legitimacy of whoever eventually emerges as president.

The APC must also recognise that electoral legitimacy is more valuable than a victory secured under a cloud of suspicion. A ruling party that wins through a demonstrably credible process has a stronger democratic mandate than one whose victory is persistently questioned.

For its part, INEC must resist every attempt by any political party, whether in government or opposition, to influence its constitutional responsibilities.

NIGERIANS MUST NOT WAIT UNTIL ELECTION DAY

One of the most damaging mistakes Nigerians can make is to wait until the announcement of election results before demanding accountability.

Electoral integrity begins long before ballot papers are distributed. It involves voter registration, party primaries, candidate nomination, campaign regulation, the accreditation of observers, the deployment of electoral personnel and the protection of election materials.

The voters’ register is particularly important because it determines who can participate in the process.

INEC should publish clear information on the verification of the register, the correction of identified errors and the procedures available to eligible voters who discover that their names are missing or their details are inaccurate.

Political parties should also be allowed to raise documented objections through lawful channels, without being subjected to arbitrary restrictions or intimidation.

Civil society organisations, professional bodies, journalists and independent election observers have a responsibility to scrutinise the process. Their work should be supported rather than treated as hostility towards the commission.

At the same time, political actors must avoid circulating fabricated documents, manipulated images or unverified claims presented as established facts. Disinformation can be used to discredit a genuine electoral process, just as secrecy can conceal genuine misconduct.

The answer to uncertainty is independent verification, not the replacement of one unsubstantiated allegation with another.

INEC MUST CHOOSE TRANSPARENCY OVER DEFENSIVENESS

The commission should consider an independent technical audit of the disputed register, particularly where specific inconsistencies have been documented.

Such an audit should examine data integrity, duplication controls, the handling of corrections, the security of the underlying database and any automated systems used in processing the information.

The findings should be made public in a form that protects voters’ personal data while providing sufficient detail for citizens to assess the credibility of the exercise.

INEC should also establish accessible channels through which voters can report suspected irregularities and receive timely responses.

Where wrongdoing is established, the individuals responsible must face the consequences prescribed by law, regardless of their political affiliations or official positions.

Transparency must not be selective. The same standards should apply whether a complaint originates from the APC, an opposition party, a civil society organisation or an ordinary Nigerian.

Furthermore, the commission should communicate regularly with the public instead of allowing unanswered questions to become breeding grounds for speculation.

Trust will not be restored by dismissing every criticism as political propaganda. Neither will it be strengthened by accepting every accusation as proof of conspiracy.

The responsibility of an independent electoral commission is to investigate credible concerns, correct identified errors and demonstrate that its decisions are grounded in law and verifiable evidence.

NIGERIA’S DEMOCRACY MUST NOT BECOME A VICTIM

The 2027 general elections will be a defining test of Nigeria’s democratic institutions. Their credibility will depend not only on what happens at polling stations but also on whether citizens believe that the entire process has been conducted fairly.

INEC must understand that a preliminary register does not automatically extinguish legitimate concerns, while public outrage alone does not establish that electoral fraud has occurred. Both the commission’s assurances and the allegations against it must be subjected to evidence.

The APC must demonstrate respect for electoral independence, while opposition parties must pursue their concerns through lawful and verifiable means.

Above all, Nigerians must insist that the electoral process belongs to the people, not to the ruling party, the opposition or the officials entrusted with administering elections.

No party should be allowed to manipulate the voters’ register, exploit technological weaknesses or use political influence to undermine the people’s mandate. Equally, no institution should be condemned without evidence where a fair investigation can establish the facts.

The message to INEC is unmistakable: publish the evidence, explain the technology, correct the errors and protect every eligible vote.

The message to the APC and every other political party is equally clear: electoral victory must come through the ballot, not through manipulation of the machinery designed to count it.

Nigeria does not need another election followed by prolonged disputes over whether the results reflected the people’s will. It needs an electoral process whose integrity is demonstrable before, during and after voting.

The 2027 elections must not become an exercise in managing public suspicion. They must be an exercise in earning public trust.

The time to protect Nigeria’s votes is now—not after the damage has been done.