Abuja’s Area Council Polls: Integrity of INEC is on Ballot

Iyobosa Uwugiaren argues the real victory of the Abuja’s Area Council elections scheduled for this Saturday will not be measured by which party controls different Area Councils. But whether Nigerians — across party lines — accept the process as fair, positing that the integrity of Professor Joash Ojo Amupitan-led Independent National Electoral Commission is on the ballot.

On the surface, this Saturday Area Council elections in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja appear predictable — another local government contest in the country’s packed democratic calendar.

But underneath the procedural calm lies a deeper national significance. These elections are not merely about who governs AMAC, Bwari, Gwagwalada, Kuje, Abaji or Kwali.

They are, in effect, a referendum on the institutional credibility of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and, by extension, the integrity of its chairman, Professor Joash Ojo Amupitan (SAN), whom many people had described as “Mr. Integrity.’’

And now, the elections carry an added stratum of political sensitivity. Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, recently declared that he would not support individuals who are “against the President” to win political office in the FCT.

In a country’s highly charged political environment, that statement echoes far beyond partisan grandiloquence. It introduces a critical question: Can an election conducted in the federal capital be protected from executive political influence?

Abuja is not just another administrative zone. It is the seat of federal power. What happens – politically in the FCT carries symbolic weight across the federation.

Local government elections typically invite modest attention. But when a powerful Minister openly frames the election in loyalty terms — aligning victory with support for President Bola Tinubu — the stakes heighten. The contest shifts from grassroots governance to a perceived loyalty test within national power politics.

In such a setting, the burden on INEC multiplies. It must not only administer the process proficiently; it must demonstrate visible independence from the political rhetoric surrounding it.

There is nothing unusual about active political actor, like Wike campaigning energetically. But when a powerful federal appointee signals that political loyalty to the President should determine electoral outcomes, it hones public examination of the electoral umpire.

The concern is not whether politicians express preferences — they always do. The concern is whether state machinery, perception of influence, or administrative structures could tilt the playing field.

In democracies, perception often shapes legitimacy as much as evidence. For INEC, therefore, the Abuja’s council elections now represent more than a test of logistics. They are a test of the INEC distance from executive politics.

In electoral politics, symbolism often dwarfs scale. And there is no more symbolic terrain than the Federal Capital Territory. What happens in Abuja does not stay in Abuja. It echoes across the federation.

But, why does this election matters beyond local governance? Local government elections traditionally attract lower turnout and limited national attention. Yet Abuja’s Area Councils occupy a peculiar constitutional and political space. As the seat of federal power, the FCT is not just another administrative unit; it is Nigeria’s democratic display case. A credible election in the capital indicates administrative discipline. A defective one broadcasts institutional weakness.

At a time when public trust in electoral institutions remains fragile, even minor operational lapses risk magnification. Technology failures, delayed logistics, inconsistent enforcement of rules — each becomes a test of credibility.

In this context, the coming polls represent more than civic routine. They are a problem-solving exercise for INEC’s preparedness ahead of the 2027 general elections, more far-reaching contests.

Indeed, every election tests two dimensions of credibility: competence and neutrality. Competence concerns logistics — timely deployment of materials, proper accreditation through BVAS, transparent collation and prompt result uploads. These are mechanical yet fundamental indicators of institutional seriousness.

Neutrality, however, is more delicate. It speaks to equal application of rules, transparent handling of candidate eligibility, and the absence of perceived partisan alignment.

In Nigeria’s political climate, perception is often as significant as proof. An election can meet procedural benchmarks and still suffer reputational damage if key stakeholders feel excluded or unfairly treated.

For the INEC chairman, therefore, the challenge is dual: deliver administrative efficiency, while guarding institutional impartiality.

There are three possible outcomes — and their consequences in the Saturday elections.

First, if polling units open on time, BVAS performs reliably, results are uploaded seamlessly, and disputes remain within legal channels, the political effect would be stabilising. Such an outcome would demonstrate INEC learning. It would suggest that electoral reforms — particularly technological safeguards — are gaining operational development.

Most importantly, it would strengthen confidence ahead of 2027. Political actors would be compelled to shift focus from delegitimising INEC to organising effectively at the grassroots. In this scenario, the chairman’s leadership gains credibility. The narrative shifts from misgiving to cautious assurance.

Second, a more probable outcome lies in the middle ground: logistical delays in some councils, minor technical failures, patchy result uploads. Here, the damage would not be disastrous — but it would be swelling. Opposition parties would amplify every lapse. Social media activists would amplify isolated incidents. Civil society groups would question preparedness.

Even if no violence erupts and courts handle disputes, repeated minor failures could reinforce a troubling narrative: not necessarily bias, but bureaucratic fragility. Institutional trust rarely collapses overnight. It erodes gradually, through tolerated ineffectiveness.

Third, the most destabilising scenario would involve widespread allegations of selective enforcement of rules, or technological breakdowns in politically strategic councils like AMAC.

In such a case, the election ceases to be local. It becomes national theatre. Abuja protests carry diplomatic visibility. Allegations of bias in the capital would ripple outward, strengthening partisan suspicion ahead of the next general elections.

This is where Professor Amupitan leadership is most tested — not in perfect conditions, but in moments of penetrating scrutiny.

INEC has invested heavily in technology in the past, particularly the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) and digital result transmission platforms. But technology is only as credible as its implementation.

If devices malfunction or uploads stall without clear communication, suspicion quickly fills the information vacuum. Transparency in explaining technical issues will be as important as resolving them. Silence breeds conspiracy. Clarity restores confidence.

The Federal Capital Territory carries diplomatic, security, and political sensitivity. Even minor unrest attracts national headlines. Therefore, safe polling units, orderly collation centres, and peaceful post-election conduct will signal that electoral democracy in Nigeria can function without coercion or chaos. Where voters feel secure, legitimacy expands. Where fear lingers, turnout shrinks — and democracy weakens quietly.

At the end of the day, the significance of the Abuja Area Council elections go beyond personalities. It touches on a deeper concern: Can Nigeria’s electoral system reliably produce outcomes perceived as fair?

Democracy does not require perfection. It requires credibility. If the coming polls are transparent and competently managed, they could mark a subtle but meaningful shift in Nigeria’s electoral trajectory — from persistent doubt toward cautious institutional rebuilding.

If they falter, however, the consequences may not be instant disruption. They may instead reinforce the slow-burning distrust that keeps voters disengaged and fuels political polarisation.

The Abuja Area Council elections are modest in scope but immense in symbolism. For INEC’s leadership, this is not simply another administrative exercise. It is a credibility checkpoint.

The real victory will not be measured by which party controls the Area Councils. It will be measured by whether Nigerians — across party lines — accept the process as fair.

In the end, elections test more than candidates. They test institutions. And in Abuja, the integrity of the INEC and by extension, its leadership, is on the ballot.