The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has taken a major step toward integrating advanced technologies into Nigeria’s electoral process with the creation of a dedicated Artificial Intelligence (AI) Division under its ICT Department.
Announced on Thursday, the initiative is part of a broader reform drive aimed at modernizing election management systems and strengthening the credibility of future polls—especially the 2027 general elections.
According to the Commission, the newly approved AI Division will focus on harnessing AI to enhance logistical planning, voter engagement, data-driven decision-making, and combatting disinformation. INEC says the initiative will also be critical in automating internal processes to mitigate risks and detect irregularities in real-time.
Register for Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 17 (June 9 – Sept 6, 2025) today for early bird discounts. Do annual for access to Blucera.com.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-invest in great global startups.
Register to become a better CEO or Director with Tekedia CEO & Director Program.
But while the move is being touted as forward-thinking and innovative, several electoral experts, civil society actors, and former government officials believe that the deployment of technologies—no matter how advanced—cannot substitute for institutional integrity and political will. The consensus remains that the biggest threat to Nigeria’s elections is not the absence of technology but the persistent manipulation of the process by human actors.
In its statement, INEC explained that the AI Division was approved during its weekly meeting in Abuja after evaluating recent global conversations on the relevance of artificial intelligence in electoral activities. These discussions, the Commission noted, emphasized both the risks posed by AI in the spread of fake news and its utility in electoral planning, risk detection, and service automation.
“The Division will enable the Commission to better coordinate and maximize existing technology investments through centralized AI governance,” said Sam Olumekun, National Commissioner and Chairman of INEC’s Information and Voter Education Committee.
“Furthermore, it will strengthen electoral credibility through predictive analytics, automation and intelligent safeguards.”
INEC added that the Division will focus on geospatial intelligence to support logistics and polling unit allocation, which have often posed significant logistical nightmares in past elections.
Human Factor: The Persistent Weak Link
However, this optimism is being met with cautious skepticism by Nigerians who point to Nigeria’s long history of election malpractice rooted in manipulation by individuals within and outside the electoral commission.
It is believed that while AI may help reduce technical glitches and improve planning, it cannot resolve the deeper systemic issues that have plagued Nigeria’s elections for decades—issues tied to collusion, manipulation, and noncompliance with established rules.
One of the most referenced examples is the 2023 general elections, during which INEC’s Results Viewing Portal (IREV)—a platform touted as a transparency tool for real-time results uploads—allegedly suffered a glitch during the presidential election. The failure to transmit results from polling units as promised led to widespread public outcry, eroded trust in the process, and sparked legal challenges that resulted in the courts deciding the winner of the presidential election.
The alleged glitch, which INEC attributed to technical failures, is still viewed by many as evidence of how the human element continues to compromise technological innovations in the electoral space.
Jonathan’s Call for Automation for Credibility
In February, former President Goodluck Jonathan, widely praised for his role in reforming Nigeria’s electoral system during his tenure, reinforced the argument that without full automation, electoral integrity will remain elusive. Speaking at the YIAGA Africa reflection conference on democratic elections in West Africa, Jonathan used the IREV incident to underscore the importance of eliminating human discretion in key technological processes.
“The issue of controversy about BVAS and IREV for example—if BVAS captures data, that data should be automatically uploaded to the IREV,” Jonathan said.
“It should not depend on an interface by a human factor who will now come and tell us about glitches. Because if it is so automated that no human factor will stop it, then of course it will be seamless.”
“But if I am to direct the BVAS before the BVAS is supposed to do the work that has been automated, then I can do what I think soothes my interest,” he added.
Jonathan’s remarks highlighted a growing demand for end-to-end electoral automation—particularly in critical phases such as accreditation, voting, and result transmission. In his view, unless systems are designed to function without discretionary interference, electoral technologies will continue to be tools in the hands of those determined to undermine the process.
The Call for Parallel Institutional Reform
While welcoming the AI Division as a step in the right direction, many Nigerians insist that its success will depend on broader institutional reforms, staff reorientation, and strict enforcement of electoral laws.
Others have urged INEC to publicly disclose the framework that will govern the deployment of AI, including ethical guidelines, audit trails, and safeguards against internal sabotage.
INEC maintains that the AI Division will help it prepare more efficiently for the 2027 elections, allowing for better planning, quicker response to emerging threats, and enhanced transparency. But the Commission also acknowledges that the reforms fall within areas that only require its administrative authority and do not depend on legislative approval.
While this gives INEC the flexibility to act swiftly, it also raises questions about oversight and accountability. For the reforms to succeed, observers say, INEC must not only invest in intelligent machines but also build a culture of integrity among those who run the systems.
The aspect of who sues who is a jurisprudence problem. What we do here is to ask the victim to provide proof that there was fraud, as against asking the umpire to provide proof that everything was done right. It is who makes positive claims that should be providing proofs, and not who makes negative claims. The same way you don’t ask a defender who claims innocence to provide proof, rather it is the prosecutor’s job to prove guilt.
INEC can talk about AI Division as it pleases, but it’s the same INEC who invested in IREV but failed to use it when it mattered most, and yet there was no consequence. The fact that the IREV was set aside should have nullified the results, but in our laws we always make provisions for vagueness, because of our criminal tendencies. We know when fraud happens but we cannot bring ourselves to admit it, because of who’s involved or what we might gain.
The politicians defecting from one party to another, do they also believe in credible elections? Because if they do, there wouldn’t be need to defect in order to save their political career. Our failures and inadequacies are always staring us in the face, but because of ineptitude and dishonesty, we keep deflecting, believing that the problem is elsewhere.