Nigeria: How To Save N240 Billion From Our Elections Jamboree

December 14, 2018 | By Umar Yakubu

For a country that has 86.9 million persons living in extreme poverty and which is low on other social indices such as life expectancy, unemployment and health expenditure rates, less than 50 per cent of the said amount – which is N13.75 billion for election technology – is more than enough for conducting elections in Nigeria!

Since the turn of the 20th century, democracy has been vigorously promoted and generally accepted as the most effective and acceptable form for administering good governance. Although different countries operate different styles of democracy, mostly designed to suit their local circumstances, the ultimate intention of this system of government is for citizens to be empowered in choosing their leaders.

In February 2019, Nigeria will have another round of “choice-making” on its next set of leaders. By March 2019, Buhari or Atiku would likely be the next president of Nigeria. An El-Rufai or Ashiru would emerge as governor of Kaduna State, while Akpan or Etim would represent Akwa-Ibom North-East Senatorial District.

For these choices, Nigeria is going to spend about N189.2 billion on the electoral process. Using the current exchange rate of N360 to the US$1, that translates to about US$525 million, an amount more than the yearly budget of several ministries, such as the Federal Ministry of Water Resources at N155 billion; of Industry, Trade and Investment (N118 billion); Health or even our counterpart funding for railways at N166 billion.

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) proposed that it will need N134.4 billion for the procurement of sensitive and non-sensitive materials, payment of allowances, logistics, voters registration, and printing of voters card, etc. The administration of elections will cost N22.6 billion, which is meant for the payment of insurance on properties, the insurance of officials involved in the electoral process and procurement of items and stationeries. It also has N4.6 billion drawn up for ‘unforeseen’ costs.

To support the elections, a few law enforcement and security agencies will gulp an additional N53 billion, amounting to about US$148 million. These include Nigeria Police Force – N30.54billion; Department of State Services (DSS) – N12.25 billion; N4.28 billion for the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA); Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps – N3.57billion; and Nigeria Immigration Service – N2.62 billion. All these amounts of money are budgeted for conducting elections in one presidential constituency, 109 senatorial constituencies, 360 federal constituencies, 991 state constituencies, along with 29 state governorship elections.

In economics, opportunity costs define the relationship between scarcity and choice. Funds are scarce. Yet, the gains made would include a reduction in electoral violence. The transparency involved would reduce the influx of money-bag politicians and those who utilise state resources for electoral victory.

Curiously, the budget has a component for “election technology cost” at N27.5 billion. For a country that has 86.9 million persons living in extreme poverty and which is low on other social indices such as life expectancy, unemployment and health expenditure rates, less than 50 per cent of the said amount – which is N13.75 billion for election technology – is more than enough for conducting elections in Nigeria! How? Using a mix of technology, innovation and sensitisation.

INEC claims to have about 80 million persons on its database. The Central Bank of Nigeria reports approximately 66 million individual accounts with Bank Verification Numbers in the country. The Nigeria Identity Management Commission (NIMC) has about 17 million names on its database. And the Nigeria Immigration Service issues international passports to citizens. All of the foregoing are government agencies that have taken full biometrics of Nigerians, and all identities have unique identifiers. All INEC needs is to have a few useful meetings with the others and sign Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) to allow for seamless access to their databases. This would be useful in the sense that unnecessary bureaucracy would be curtailed, and there would be no forming of committees to look at the vocabulary of other committees. This, of course, is assuming that all the databases exist and are functional.

A web and mobile application can be developed at the cost of not more than N100 million naira. Now, that’s less than US$300, 000. At that cost, it will have the highest level of technological security in the marketplace. All the databases would simply be linked to the web or mobile application, and any Nigerian with either a PVC, BVN, NIMC card or any form of government approved identity that stores biometric data can securely vote from anywhere in the world.

Tik-Tok has more than 45 million daily downloads. Facebook, Instagram and Google Maps each have more than 30 million downloads. The activity that entails within such applications every day is in the billions, with no glitch. So why can’t we digitise the whole process since we have technological enablers?

The N53 billion for ‘security’ will not be needed as there will be no need for polling booths or centres. The N134 billion for sensitive and non-sensitive materials would be saved. Electoral violence would be minimised. Vote buying would be reduced to its barest minimum and corruption associated with elections would be curtailed. There won’t be a need for having a ballot paper with the logos of 90 parties on it. What happens in the future when we have 200 parties?

Of course, there will be social consequences if such measures are taken. This will reduce political spending, which may negatively affect the economy and business of catering, printing and transportation. Youth Corps members would undoubtedly be unhappy because there won’t serve as electoral officers and make extra allowances.

As usual, we love to create problems for every solution, and the knee-jerk response would be that these are impossible. Also, some may pose the argument that there is no legal framework for full electronic voting. By the Nigerian standard, it takes years to pass laws, more years for the regulation to be approved by the attorney-general and an infinity to sign an MoU between public funded agencies. So that’s a reality that can easily be overcome by a serious government.

The second argument would be that technologically un-savvy people would be disenfranchised. However, since over N240 billion would have been saved, INEC may decide to give each of the 90 political parties N200 million each for sensitisation activities. Most parties have structures at every ward in the country, and the money would be for support purposes only. Parties are meant to fund their own sensitisation activities. And, if they decide to misappropriate the funds, they would be embezzling their electoral fortunes also. Alongside campaigning for votes, parties will educate voters on how to vote electronically. Parties would immediately set up business centres with free high-speed internet for for that purpose, while a lot of international stakeholders would be willing to support the sensitisation and voter education efforts of INEC.

Also, as data would be required for voting and most people can’t afford it, Google and other responsible communications stakeholders would certainly be more than willing to support that aspect. In addition, I believe that Etisalat and Globacom would gladly offer a weekend free of data payment.

Of course, there will be social consequences if such measures are taken. This will reduce political spending, which may negatively affect the economy and business of catering, printing and transportation. Youth Corps members would undoubtedly be unhappy because there won’t serve as electoral officers and make extra allowances. There won’t also be any money to be made for the provision of ‘security’. That would affect the morale of the season. In addition, legal practitioners won’t be happy because there will be less election petition cases to scavenge for.

In economics, opportunity costs define the relationship between scarcity and choice. Funds are scarce. Yet, the gains made would include a reduction in electoral violence. The transparency involved would reduce the influx of money-bag politicians and those who utilise state resources for electoral victory. Law enforcement agencies would not be needed at any level. The government would have enriched its population and demographic database, while over N200 billion would be saved and used for other purposes. And when the leaders underperform, we won’t feel so bad because the investment made was low.

Umar Yakubu is with the Centre for Fiscal Transparency and Integrity Watch. Twitter @umaryakubu