INEC Reacts To False Claim of Result Manipulations During FCT Area Council Election

The Commission categorically states that the claim of manipulation or falsification is untrue and misleading.

We affirm that the discrepancies in the reported results were due to an error by the Presiding Officer while entering the score of the party.

The matter was investigated, and when the Presiding Officer was contacted, below was the report of the officer who interrogated her: “I have spoken to the Presiding Officer. She recounted her experience. She said after sorting and counting the ballots, she recorded 122 for APC.

On tallying everything, she noticed that there was an overshoot by one (1). So they had to recount the ballots in the open, that was when she realised that APC should be 121 not 122. So she cancelled the ‘2’ at the end and slotted in a ‘1’ in front of the cancelled ‘2’ to make it 121.

She also corrected the figures in words.

The official result recorded and uploaded from the said polling unit shows that the political party in question scored 121 votes, not 1,219 as alleged on social media. This is obvious from the clearer version of the result on the INEC IREV for anyone to see (see attached).

The above can be confirmed from the party agents who were present and duly signed the result. It was the correct and accurate result that was subsequently duly entered into the collation form EC8B at the Ward Collation (see attached). Thus, the figure used for collation at the Ward and Area Council levels was 121 and not 1,219 as alleged, consistent with the number entered at the polling unit.

The current result management architecture deployed by the Commission makes the alleged manipulation technically impossible in the manner described.

Specifically: The Presiding Officer is required to: Capture and upload an image of the completed Form EC8A to the INEC Result Viewing Portal (IReV); and enter the scores of each political party directly into the BVAS device.

The BVAS system performs internal validation checks to ensure: The total votes entered do not exceed the number of accredited voters.

The figures entered are mathematically consistent.

Over-voting is automatically flagged and cannot be finalised.

In this particular case: The number of accredited voters was 213.

The score entered into the BVAS for the party concerned was 121.

The total votes recorded were consistent with accreditation figures.

The same figure (121) was used during collation.

”If, as alleged, a figure of 1,219 votes had been entered, the BVAS device would have rejected the entry instantly.

The total votes cast would necessarily have reflected such an inflated figure. The discrepancy would have been flagged at the multiple collation stages. None of these occurred because the official recorded score was 121, not 1,219.

INEC reiterates that, the IReV portal is a transparency tool that mirrors results uploaded directly from polling units.

The BVAS-driven validation process prevents over-voting and numerical manipulation at source.

The result relied upon for collation was consistent with the data captured in the BVAS. All the other results on the social media alleging alteration were, in line with the Electoral Act, also cross-checked and found to be correct before they were collated and added.

The FCT election was conducted in substantial compliance with the Electoral Act and the INEC Guidelines.

The Commission therefore urges members of the public and media commentators to verify information with official records before drawing conclusions capable of eroding public confidence in the electoral process.

INEC remains committed to transparency, accountability, and continuous improvement of the electoral process. Where genuine errors occur, they are investigated and addressed.

However, the present allegations are based on genuine errors which were immediately corrected as such the misinterpretation of figures do not reflect the official record used in collating and declaring the results.

The Commission will continue to safeguard the integrity of the electoral process using technology-driven safeguards and legal compliance mechanisms.

We appreciate the public’s interest in the electoral process and encourage citizens to rely on verified information from official INEC communications.