Odita Sunday 
By Dr. Chris Okobah
A stolen ballot box leaves an empty table, frightened witnesses and a visible crime scene. A manipulated digital process could leave a polished spreadsheet—and a nation struggling to discover where its mandate disappeared.
That is why INEC’s introduction of artificial intelligence into election result verification deserves rigorous public scrutiny.
Technology can strengthen democracy. But technology operating beyond meaningful public oversight can also make electoral wrongdoing harder to detect, harder to explain and harder to challenge.
INEC says its AI tools will operate under mandatory human oversight. Nigerians must demand that this promise become a verifiable safeguard. Who exercises that oversight? particularly in a Nigerian that is ubiquitously corrupt. What can they inspect? Can they reject the system’s conclusions? Who records their decisions, and who holds them accountable?
Are those entrusted with oversight responsibilities themselves immune to corruption, or could they equally be compromised by the very forces they are expected to scrutinise and hold accountable?
The question is not whether a computer can identify an arithmetic error. The question is whether citizens can independently establish that the votes announced are the votes actually cast.
At the polling unit, democracy has a human face. Citizens watch ballots being counted. Party agents inspect result sheets. People photograph Form EC8A and preserve records against which subsequent figures can be checked.
Those records must remain accessible and authoritative. No technological upgrade should weaken the citizen’s ability to follow a vote from the polling unit to the final declaration.
The vote belongs to the citizen. Every system that processes it owes the citizen an explanation.
An algorithm should flag discrepancies for investigation. It must never acquire an unquestionable authority to determine which figures deserve acceptance. Every correction must identify the original record, the reason for the change and the official responsible.
Otherwise, “the system verified it” could become the newest language of institutional evasion.
And who verifies the system?
Who designs its rules? Who supplies its data? Who tests its errors? Who can inspect its operations independently? What happens when its conclusions conflict with signed polling-unit records?
These questions are especially urgent where political trust is already fragile. A ruling party, including the APC, must never enjoy privileged access to electoral infrastructure or benefit from scrutiny that opposition parties and citizens cannot equally exercise.
The creation of an AI division does not prove a conspiracy. But Nigerians should not have to wait for a compromised election before demanding protection against one.
There is another danger: the use of deepfakes as an excuse to dismiss authentic evidence.
Fabricated videos can deceive the public. Yet the existence of fabrication must never become a blanket defence against footage showing intimidation, bribery or interference with voting.
When troubling evidence emerges, the response must be independent authentication. A politician’s declaration that a recording is “AI-generated” cannot settle the matter.
If every embarrassing recording can be dismissed without examination, technology will have given impunity a new vocabulary.
The same principle applies to disputes over digital results. A credible challenge requires access to relevant records: original uploads, timestamps, processing histories, authorisations and preserved audit logs.
Cybersecurity must protect electoral infrastructure while allowing lawful, controlled scrutiny. It must not become a convenient curtain behind which public accountability disappears.
A democracy cannot tell citizens to prove wrongdoing while withholding the records needed to investigate it.
INEC should publish clear rules governing its AI tools, commission independent audits, preserve original result records and provide a transparent process for challenging automated findings. Political parties, accredited observers and the courts must have appropriate access to evidence.
Human oversight must involve identifiable people making recorded, reviewable decisions. It must carry responsibility.
The deeper issue reaches beyond software.
When a vote is stolen, a citizen loses influence over the conditions of life: the hospital without medicine, the school without teachers, the community without safe water and the road on which another family receives devastating news.
Electoral accountability is how citizens demand answers for those failures. Weakening it deepens the distance between public suffering and political consequence.
Nigeria needs innovation that makes its elections easier to verify. Every new layer of technology should strengthen the evidence available to citizens.
We must reject ballot-box snatching, intimidation and digital manipulation with equal determination.
A stolen mandate does not become legitimate because the theft is silent.
Before Nigerians are asked to trust an intelligent machine, they must be able to inspect the process, challenge its conclusions and hold its operators accountable.
No party should possess a private route through the machinery of a public election.
No algorithm should stand above the voter.
And no government should be allowed to build a fortress around the truth.
Chris Okobah PhD
Award wining author
Please kindly share if you believe in free and fare election and that a new Nigeria is possible
About the Author
