Prince Afegbua Carpets European Union Election Observation Mission Report

Afegbua criticized the EU’s condemnation, questioning their ability to send a sufficient number of personnel to all polling units.

The former Commissioner for Information and Strategy in Edo State challenged the EU EOM’s focus on the imperfections of the election, arguing that they should not overshadow the fact that the Nigerian people democratically elected President Tinubu. He highlighted the defeat of seven sitting governors as evidence that the electoral process was not biased or manipulated.

According to Afegbua, the EU’s assessment solely based on outcomes fails to acknowledge the credibility of the overall electoral process.

Expressing doubts about the EU EOM’s observations, Afegbua revealed that he personally did not encounter any EU observers in his polling unit. This led him to question the EU’s credibility in assessing the Nigerian elections, suggesting that their report might not accurately reflect the ground reality. He implied that the absence of EU observers in certain areas undermines the comprehensiveness of their assessment.

He further criticized the EU EOM’s condemnation of the election, pointing out that it would have been impractical for them to deploy 176,974 personnel to cover all the polling units. He argued that even the Labour Party, a major political party, could not supply 100,000 polling agents, making the EU’s claims appear exaggerated. By highlighting this discrepancy, Afegbua questioned the basis for the EU’s strong condemnation of the election.

Afegbua’s response to the EU EOM report defends the Nigerian election’s credibility, emphasizing that imperfections should not overshadow the choice made by the voters. He criticized the EU’s assessment, questioning their lack of visibility in certain areas and their ability to deploy a sufficient number of personnel. While his arguments provide an alternative perspective, a comprehensive analysis incorporating multiple viewpoints is essential to form a balanced understanding of the election’s credibility.