This document is the detailed report on observations of the 2015 general elections in Nigeria. The observation was focused on the inclusivity and accessibility issues in the conduct of the general elections.

1. Edited by Adebayo
Adebukola
INCLUSION OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES IN THE CONDUCT OF THE 2015
GENERAL ELECTIONS IN NIGERIA:
ELECTION OBSERVERS REPORT

2. pg. 2
© Disability Policy and Advocacy Initiative (DPAI) & Lagos State Civil Society Partnership
(LACSOP), July, 2015.
This document may be reproduced in any accessible formats and circulated through any
medium strictly for public use with adequate reference to the Publishers - Disability Policy
and Advocacy Initiative (DPAI), Nigeria and Lagos State Civil Society Partnership
(LACSOP), Nigeria.
No part or whole of this document shall be reproduced for commercial purposes without the
permission of its Publishers, DPAI and LACSOP.
This document may be downloaded from the websites of DPAI, LACSOP and its
Development Partners.
Disclaimer
The content of this document does not represent the views of DFID-SAVI which provided
support for the processes leading to its making and publishing.
The core content of this Report was developed at a 4-day Technical Review and Report
Drafting Session held at the Lagos office of DFID-SAVI, attended by 15 participants (See
Appendix A for full list of participants) and facilitated by Rommy Mom, DFID-SAVI‘s
Federal Programme Manager and Felix Obanubi, DFID-SAVI‘s Lagos State Team Leader
Final compilation and editing of this document was done by Dr.Adebukola Adebayo, Director
General, HORDC and Director, Research &Programmes, Disability Policy Advocacy
Initiative (DPAI).
Graphic design, illustration and photo analysis was provided by AkinolaEmmanuella,
coordinator, Disability Awareness and Development Initiative, and Director of Media and
Publicity, DPAI.
Special review and analysis of relevant local and international election related statutes was
provided by Barrister Daniel Onwe, member and Legal Adviser to DPAI.
Data entry and Statistical computation was provided by KehindeKuforiji, member, LACSOP.
July, 2015.

3. pg. 3
TABLE OF CONTENT
Preface
Acknowledgement
List of Abbreviations
Executive Summary
Chapter 1: Inclusive Electoral Process in Nigeria: Issues and Perspectives
1.0 Background
1.1 Rationale for Inclusive Electoral Process (right to vote and be voted for)
1.2 Problems of Electoral Inclusion and Accessibility in Nigeria
1.3 Characteristics of Inclusive Elections
1.4 Stakeholders in the Conduct of Inclusive and Accessible Electoral Process
1.4.1 Political Parties
1.4.2 Civil Society Organizations CSOs
1.4.3 POLICE/SECURITY
1.4.4 MEDIA
1.4.5. National and State Legislatures
1.4.6. Election Management Bodies EMBs
1.5 Advocacy for Inclusive and Accessible 2015 General Elections
Chapter 2- International Regional and State laws on inclusive policies
2.0 Introduction
2.1 Electoral Laws and Experiences in Inclusive Elections: 1977 to 2010
2.2 INEC Strategic Programme of Action 2012-2016
2.3 Provisions of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria for the
Conduct of Inclusive and Accessible Electoral Process
2.4 Contributions of State Disability Laws to the conduct of Inclusive and Accessible
Electoral Process in Nigeria

4. pg. 4
2.4.1 Ekiti State Rights of Persons with Disabilities Law 2013
2.4.2 Lagos State Special Peoples Law, 2011
2.5 Contributions of International Statutes to the conduct of Inclusive and Accessible
Electoral Process in Nigeria
2.5.1 The African Charter on Human and Peoples Right (ACHPR)
2.5.2 United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD)
2.6 Summary
Chapter 3- Descriptive Analyses of Activities during and After the 2015 General
Election
3.0 Introduction
3.1 Pre-election
3.2 During election
3.2.1 Presidential and National Assembly Elections
3.2.2 Gubernatorial and State Assemblies Elections
3.3 Post Election
3.4 Summary
Chapter 4- Quantitative Analysis of Observations from the 2015 General Elections
4.0 Introduction
4.1 Methodology
4.1.1 Design
4.1.2 Population
4.1.3 Sample Size and Sampling Method
4.1.4 Methods of Observation, Data Collection and Analysis
4.1.5 Limitations
4.2 States-by-State Presentation and Analysis of Data
4.2.1 General Summary
4.3 Zonal Analysis
4.3.1 General Summary

5. pg. 5
Chapter 5- Major Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 Major Findings
5.2 Conclusion
5.3 Recommendations
5.3.1 The Role of Media Organizations
5.3.2 The Role of Security Agencies
5.3.3 The Role of National and State Legislatures
5.3.4 The Role of Local and International Development Agencies
5.3.5 The Role of Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)
5.3.6 The Role of Political Parties
Appendix A- Attendance List for a 4-Day Review Session on 2015 General Election
Appendix B- Monitoring Checklist on Inclusive Electoral Process
Appendix C- Mandate Protection Factsheet
Appendix D–Voter and Civic Education Leaflet

6. pg. 6
PREFACE
The resolution by DPAI and LACSOP to embark on the observation of the 2015 general
elections was born out of the need to sustain its advocacy for inclusive and accessible
electoral process for persons with disabilities (PWDs) in Nigeria which it commenced in
January 2014.
One key outcome of the DPAI and LACSOP advocacy in 2014 was the first ever production
of a Monitoring Checklist on Inclusive Electoral Process in Nigeria. The draft of the
Monitoring Checklist was presented to the Chairman and Management of the Independent
National Electoral Commission (INEC) for its input on July 22nd
2014. The Draft Monitoring
Checklist was also validated by other stakeholders including disability groups, the media,
political parties and other mainstream CSOs at a Meeting held in Abuja on 14th
November,
2014 with the support of DFID-SAVI, International Republican Institute (IRI) and the
National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). Following INEC‘s pledge to adopt the
Checklist, copies were forwarded to the INEC Head Quarters and same were deployed to all
its state offices across Nigeria. INEC also used the Checklist for the training of its staff in
preparation for the 2015 general elections.1
,2
Further engagements of DPAI and LACSOP with INEC before the general elections also lead
to the first ever production of voter and civic education materials including media jingles in
formats accessible to the deaf and the blind persons in Lagos and across the country. INEC
also ensured the PWDs were adequately represented and provided for at all it‘s public and
citizens‘ consultative forum and programmes. Most significantly, INEC announced its
implementation of a policy on ―Priority Voting‖ which provided that voters with disabilities,
elderly voters and pregnant women be given priority attention during voter registration,
accreditation and voting.
Accordingly, it would only be apt to expect that these interventions would make substantial
positive impacts on the conduct of the general elections. Based on this expectation, DPAI and
LACSOP collaborated with Transition Monitoring Group (TMG) to deploy the Monitoring
Checklist for the observation of the 2015 general elections in 10 states, spread across 5 geo-
political zones in Nigeria.
This book, therefore, is a compilation of DPAI and LACSOP‘s reports which emanated from
the observation of the Presidential, National Assembly, Gubernatorial and State Assembly
elections in 2015. The five chapters in the book was developed at a four-day Technical
Review Session on the Observation of the 2015 General Election; facilitated by Rommy
Mom, DFID-SAVI‘s Federal Programme Manager and Felix Obanubi, DFID-SAVI‘s State
Team Leader in Lagos State; held at the SAVI-Lagos office on 5th
to 8th
May, 2015.
This five-chapter publication, documents critical issues, perspectives, rationale, challenges
and stakeholders inclusive electoral process in its first chapter. The chapter also highlights
key advocacy strategies adopted by DPAI and LACSOP as well as the major outcomes
attained there from.
1
This statement is credited to a senior staff of INEC in Lagos who reported that “INEC received copies of the
Monitoring Checklist and has deployed same during training of adhoc and permanent staff…”
2
Reports were also received from Anambra state of INEC’s receipt of the Monitoring Checklist and its use for
training activities.

7. pg. 7
The book reviews major local and international legislative and policy documents and
frameworks in the second chapter with a view to identifying the scope and effectiveness of
provisions contained thereof to promote inclusivity and accessibility needs of PWDs.
However, in the third and fourth chapters, the book presents both narrative and quantitative
analysis of observations from the 2015 general elections.
The fifth and final chapter presents major findings from the observation exercise. The chapter
also draws critical conclusions on the prospects of inclusive electoral process in Nigeria;
while strategic recommendations targeting key stakeholders are enumerated.
Finally, the import and relevance of this book to the conduct of further advocacies and
awareness rising on issues of inclusive and accessible elections to PWDs cannot be
underestimated. It will also serve as a very strategic referential tool for stakeholders involved
in all aspects of designing, developing, planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluating
inclusive electoral process within and beyond Nigeria.

8. pg. 8
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
DPAI and LACSOP acknowledge and appreciate the tremendous contributions of civil
society partners across the 10 states that made huge sacrifice of time and other resources to
observe the inclusion, access and participation of persons with disabilities and other
vulnerable citizens in the 2015 general elections. We note with utmost regard, the
demonstration of understanding, creativity and ingenuity by all Observers despite obvious
technical and administrative shortcomings in the planning of the exercise.
We appreciate in particular, all CSO partners who directly contributed towards the
development of this Report during the 4-day Review and Report Development Meeting held
after the general elections in the Lagos office of DFID-SAVI between 5th
and 8th
May, 2015.
We sincerely appreciate all members of DPAI, LACSOP, JONAPWD, other CSO partners
and individuals who sacrificed time and intellect to initiate the entire advocacy project on
inclusive and accessible electoral process in Nigeria since January, 2014 when the desk
review was conducted in Lagos; the Southwest Stakeholders Validation Forum held on 12th
May 2014 in Ibadan; the National Stakeholders Review and Validation Forum held on 14th
November, 2014 in FCT Abuja; and the several planning meetings for the election
observation exercise.
We also express our sincere appreciation to all media organizations, Journalists and other
media practitioners who participated at the media dialogue held in May, 2014 and for
providing the media space for public awareness on issues of inclusive electoral process in
Nigeria.
We acknowledge the cooperation, support and partnership relationship provided by the state
and national offices of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) all through
the processes of the DPAI and LACSOP-lead advocacy on inclusive and accessible electoral
process in Nigeria. In particular, we appreciate INEC‘s nationwide adoption and use of the
Monitoring Checklist developed by DPAI and LACSOP; the support by the Lagos state
office of INEC for the production of the campaign posters on Priority Voting which was
designed by DPAI and LACSOP; as well as INEC‘s very responsive attitude towards ideas,
proposals and recommendations emanating from the entire advocacy process.
Finally, we express our profound gratitude to all the International Development Agencies
especially the Lagos and National offices of State Accountability and Voice Initiative (SAVI)
of the DFID and International Republican Institute (IRI) for the support they provided for the
entire advocacy process since January, 2014 to date, including the production of the
Monitoring Checklist and the observation exercise. We also acknowledge the support from
the International Republican Institute (IRI) in the production of the Monitoring Checklist and
the observation exercise.

9. pg. 9
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ACHPR: African Charter on Human and Peoples Right
ADA: Americans with Disabilities Act
CSOs: Civil Society Organizations
DDB: Disability Data-Base
DFID: Department for International Development
DPAI: Disability Policy and Advocacy Initiative
DPOs: Disabled People's Organizations
EMB: Election Management Body
HORDC: Human and Organizational Resources Development Centre
INEC: Independent National Electoral Commission
IDP: International Development Partners
IFES: International Foundation for Electoral Systems
IRI: International Republican Institute
JONAPWD: Joint National Association of Persons with Disabilities
LACSOP: Lagos State Civil Society Partnership
LGA: Local Government Area
NBC: Nigerian Broadcasting Commission
NDI: National Democratic Institute
NHRC: National Human Rights Commission
OCV: Out of Country Voting
PWDs: Persons with Disabilities
PU: Polling Unit
SAVI: State Accountability and Voice Initiative
SIEC: State Independent Electoral Commission
TMG: Transition Monitoring Group
UK: United Kingdom

10. pg. 10
UNCRPD: United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities
U.S: United States
VCEC: Voter and Civic Education and Communication
WHO: World Health Organization

11. pg. 11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Elections are the hallmark of every representative democracy and it is required that every
eligible citizen participate equally and effectively in the process. The exclusion of any section
of the citizenry will not only amount to the breach of their fundamental rights, but will also
reduce the legitimacy and acceptability of any government which emerges from such process.
A critical review of Nigeria's democratic history especially since 1999 reveals a near total
exclusion of persons with disabilities (PWDs) from all aspects of the electoral process. In
spite of relevant provisions made by the 1999 Constitution, the 2010 Electoral Act and other
legislative and policy instruments, the inclusion and participation of PWDs in the electoral
process has been very marginal; basically limited to vote casting devoid of secrecy and
independence as prescribed by law and as enjoyed by other non-disabled citizens.
In 2014, the Lagos State Civil Society Partnership (LACSOP), the umbrella body for all
network of CSOs in Lagos State in partnership with Disability Policy and Advocacy Initiative
(DPAI) both supported by DFID‘s State Accountability and Voice Initiative (SAVI), IRI and
NHRC, considered it apt and timely to make a strategic intervention to conduct an advocacy
with critical stakeholders especially the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)
on possibilities of ensuring increased and improved participation of PWDs in the 2015
general elections.
The climax of these advocacies was the conduct of observation of the general elections in 10
states spread across 5 geo-political zones in Nigeria using a Monitoring Checklist which was
also developed in the course of the advocacies. The outcome of the election observation
which is contained in this book was harmonized and analysed at a 4-day Technical Review
Session held between 5th
and 8th
May, 2015 at the Lagos office of DFID-SAVI.
Based on the observation of the 2015 general elections conducted in 10 states across 5 geo-
political zones in Nigeria, and the outcome of desk review of relevant literature, the following
constitute major findings which should be considered for action:
(a) Existing electoral legislative and policy frameworks including the 1999 Constitution,
the Electoral Act 2010 and INEC‘s Strategic Plan for 2012-2016 are found to be
grossly insufficient and incapable of effectively promoting inclusive and accessible
electoral process in Nigeria.
(b) As observed in the 2015 general elections, the level of public awareness and
enlightenment on issues of inclusive electoral process in Nigeria is only fairly high.
However, it is grossly insufficient to elicit appropriate positive attitude and response
of the general public towards issues of inclusive electoral process.
(c) There is inadequate attention, contribution and commitment of relevant scholars,
professionals, development agencies and other stakeholders towards research and
development of inclusive electoral process in Nigeria.
(d) There is general lack of technical capacity on the part of EMBs, political parties, the
media, the Legislature, security agencies, CSOs and DPOs, as well as PWDs
themselves on issues and practices in inclusive electoral process.
(e) There is no disability data base (DDB) with regard to management and administrative
logistics and planning for the implementation of inclusive electoral process.

12. pg. 12
(f) The fairly high turn-out of voters with disabilities, elderly voters and women
(including pregnant women) in the 2015 general elections demonstrate their
willingness and capacity to effectively participate in an inclusive and accessible
electoral process once all technical, institutional, human and infrastructural
requirements are met.
(g) Implementation of INEC‘s policy on ―Priority Voting‖ is encouraging going by the
level of compliance observed. However, some observed trends suggest that this is not
sufficient to guaranty an inclusive electoral process.
(h) Observations reveal that the level of accessibility to polling units, electoral/voting
materials such as ballot papers for the blind; sing language interpretation for the deaf;
physical access for the physically challenged and simplified information for the
intellectually disabled are still very far-fetched in the attainment of inclusive and
accessible electoral process in Nigeria.
(i) It was observed that political parties, the media, and mainstream CSOs lack capacity
and courage to support interested PWDs to stand for elections at any level.
(j) It was also observed that the level of violence before, during and after elections as
well as intimidation by security officials are still significantly high to discourage
effective participation of PWDs, the elderly and women in the political process
In view of these findings, the following are some of the key recommendations proposed in
this Report:
(a) Actors in the media sector including regulators, media organizations and professionals
should give adequate attention, resources, support and commitment towards
promoting inclusion of PWDs in the electoral process.
(b) Security agencies and their officials should be properly trained to secure the electoral
process; exhibiting democratic attitudes and skills; and providing necessary support to
vulnerable voters including those with disabilities.
(c) National and state Legislatures should be enlightened on the need to enact disability
and gender-inclusive electoral laws, while also making sufficient financial
appropriation to provide for institutional and infrastructural requirements for the
conduct of inclusive elections.
(d) Local and International Development Agencies should institute policies and
programmes which promote inclusion and access for PWDs and other vulnerable
voters. It is also important that they draw funding conditions which compel EMBs,
political parties, the media and other stakeholders to make room for inclusion of
PWDs.
(e) EMBs (INEC and SIECs) should develop and implement disability-inclusive electoral
policies and programmes. They should also include disability-inclusion in all their
guidelines and other regulatory documents to compel other electoral actors to
mainstream inclusive behaviours. It is also important that EMBs do more to
effectively engage with PWDs and DPOs.
(f) Political parties should develop and implement disability-inclusion policies and
programmes; give quotas to PWDS interested in running for elective positions; as
well as employ qualified PWDs in their offices.
(g) CSOs should support citizens to develop more responsive attitudes towards PWDs
before, during and after elections. They should also mainstream disability issues in
their engagements with other electoral stakeholders.

13. pg. 13
Chapter 1
INCLUSIVE ELECTORAL PROCESS IN NIGERIA: ISSUES AND
PERSPECTIVES
1.0 Background
Elections are the hallmark of every representative democracy and it is required that every
eligible citizen participate equally and effectively in the process. The exclusion of any section
of the citizenry will not only amount to the breach of their fundamental rights, but will also
reduce the legitimacy and acceptability of any government which emerges from such process.
A critical review of Nigeria's democratic history especially since 1999 reveals a near total
exclusion of persons with disabilities (PWDs) from all aspects of the electoral process. In
spite of relevant provisions made by the 1999 Constitution, the 2010 Electoral Act and other
legislative and policy instruments, the inclusion and participation of PWDs in the electoral
process has been very marginal; basically limited to vote casting devoid of secrecy and
independence as prescribed by law and as enjoyed by other non-disabled citizens.
Since 1999, Nigeria‘s electoral process has been conducted in such a way that significantly
excludes vulnerable citizens especially PWDs. Not only are election laws and institutions
designed in such ways that limit the inclusions of PWDs, physical and social inclusion and
access are virtually denied. There are also poor and ineffective engagements between
Disabled People‘s Organizations (DPOs) and key stakeholders especially the mainstream
Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) and the media in promoting issues of disability in the
electoral process.
Several attempts to reform the electoral process in 2001, 2006 and 2010 have resulted in little
or no improvements in the inclusion and access of PWDs to effectively participate in the
electoral process. However, since 2012, stakeholders including DPOs, CSOs and
International Development Partners (IDPs) have made tremendous efforts to take advantage
of on-going review of the 1999 Constitution and other socio-political reforms processes to
renew vigorous advocacies for the reform of the electoral process to enhance its inclusivity
and accessibility to PWDs.
In 2014, the Lagos State Civil Society Partnership (LACSOP), the umbrella body for all
network of CSOs in Lagos State in partnership with Disability Policy and Advocacy Initiative
(DPAI) both supported by DFID‘s State Accountability and Voice Initiative (SAVI) and IRI
considered it apt and timely to make a strategic intervention to conduct an advocacy with
critical stakeholders especially the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on
possibilities of ensuring increased and improved participation of PWDs in the 2015 general
elections.
1.1 Rationale for Inclusive Electoral Process (right to vote and be voted for)
The electoral process is one of the key pillars of any democratic system; this is because it
provides opportunity for every adult citizen to participate directly or indirectly in the
government and governance of the society at local, national and international levels. Through
elections, citizens are able to vote (elect or select) their representatives in government.

14. pg. 14
According to the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES, 2014), Elections
provide a unique opportunity to increase participation and change public perceptions about
the abilities of persons with disabilities. As a result, persons with disabilities can have a
stronger political voice and be increasingly recognized as equal citizens. This sets the stage
for on-going participation in their communities and social and economic integration.3
Involvement empowers persons with disabilities and positively shapes the political process
and democratization outcomes. It is therefore important to engage persons with disabilities
from the outset of program design. This ensures that persons with disabilities are also equal
partners who have a voice in decisions that affect their lives.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) serves
as the international guiding framework for the implementation of inclusive electoral process
and provides the legal basis and a set of standards for the full and equal participation of
persons with disabilities in public life. Articles 29 and 12 are particularly relevant for
election-related activities. Details of this are discussed in the next chapter.
The electoral process consist of series of interrelated activities beginning from the enactment
of relevant electoral laws, policies and regulations; the establishment of the Election
Management Body (EMB); determining and planning for election dates, venues and time;
hiring and training of ad-hoc and permanent electoral officials; conduct of voters and civic
education on election; designing and deployment of election materials; conduct of voting;
counting of ballot; declaration of winners and settling of election disputes; preparation and
conduct of election monitoring; and, review and evaluation of conducted elections.
All these activities are expected to comply with all relevant local, national and international
legal and policy instruments which seek to guarantee that the electoral process must be
peaceful, free and fair. These instruments also provide that the electoral process should
guarantee equal access to, and participation of all citizens irrespective of their social, cultural,
and economic and disability status.
On the contrary, according to several studies, most electoral processes fall short of these
ethical and legal requirements especially the guaranteeing and enhancing of access and
participation of all adult citizens. The most electorally excluded section of the population has
been found to be largely made up of persons with various disabilities.
Persons with disabilities (PWDs) in all countries of the world suffer various forms of
electoral accessibility challenges, deliberately and/or ignorantly created by local and national
legal and policy instruments such as constitutions, electoral laws and other policy and
regulatory frameworks issued by EMBs.
Exclusion of PWDs from, and their inadequate access and participation in the electoral
process manifest in forms ranging from little or no consultation in the development of
electoral laws, policies and regulations; exclusion from participating in the administration of
EMBs; exclusion from the processes of designing and planning of election logistics including
voting materials, voting venues, etc; little or no involvement in the training of election
officials; little or no access to election and political media information; inaccessible ballot
3
The International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) (2014); Equal Access: How to include Persons
with Disabilities in Electoral and Political Processes. www.IFES.org

15. pg. 15
papers and voting machines, voting centres, etc; and exclusion
from election monitoring activities.
1.2 Problems of Electoral Inclusion and Accessibility in Nigeria
In spite of Nigeria‘s commitment to several relevant international conventions such as
UNCRPD, and the provisions made by the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act, 2010, the
Nigerian EMB, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is yet to establish a
truly inclusive and accessible electoral process. Since 1999, only very few PWDs have had
marginal participation; basically at the voting stages of elections. Most PWDs are completely
excluded from all aspects of the process.
1. Low Institutional Capacity:
 Although INEC recently established designated Desks nationwide on
disability and inclusion matters to guide and ensure compliance with relevant
laws and policies. Observations reveal that most of the officers managing this
Desks are not persons with disabilities and lack adequate capacity to engage
with PWDs;
 INEC does not currently have any data-base on population of Nigerians with
disabilities. INEC‘s voters registration process is not sensitive and adapted to
nature of disabilities;
 INEC‘s permanent and ad-hoc staff lack the capacity to engage effectively
with PWDs in all stages of the electoral process.
2. Exclusion from Citizens Engagements on Election Matters:
 There is no adequate inclusion of PWDs by INEC when conducting citizens
consultations on election matters;
 Children and youths with disabilities are not effectively provided for in the
development and application of electoral and civic educational materials;
 Citizens with disabilities are not usually effectively considered and captured
when preparing and disseminating electoral information and communication
materials.
3. Inaccessibility and Restriction of PWDs:
Picture: A polling unit sited in
front of an open ditch which
inhibits access to physically
challenged persons.

16. pg. 16
 Inaccessible polling centres for wheel chair users, lack of Braille ballots for
the blind, lack of sign language support for deaf persons and lack of provision
for persons with limb loss;
 Inaccessible political parties' ads and campaign materials.
4. Exclusion from Election Monitoring and other Allied Matters
 DPOs and PWDs have never had opportunity to participate in election
monitoring activities in Nigeria due to inadequate awareness on the part of
INEC, civil society groups and other stakeholders;
 PWDs have been largely excluded from participating in political party
activities;
 Civil society groups advocating for electoral reforms have excluded issues
affecting PWDs. There hasn‘t been remarkable engagements between
mainstream CSOs and DPOs on the need for inclusive electoral process in
Nigeria;
 Since 1999, international and local development partners have not given
significant considerations to supporting DPOs and PWDs in their quest for
inclusive electoral process in Nigeria. Few efforts in the past have failed due
to poor follow-up programmes and the failure to secure adequate commitment
from INEC.
1.3 Characteristics of Inclusive Elections
Inclusion is the acceptance of all people regardless of their differences. It is about
appreciating people for who they are because even though we are all different, we are one.
Inclusion allows people to value differences in each other by recognizing that each person has
an important contribution to make to our society.4
As a social principle, inclusion presupposes that everyone is considered, consulted, involved,
has access to and participating in all social, economic and political processes, systems,
institutions at an equal level irrespective of status.
As an attitude or behaviour, inclusion becomes internalized by individuals as their way of life
or culture. It becomes an ethical code of conduct or principle which guides daily and every
activity especially when it is reinforced by legal, policy and institutional guides and practices.
According to Stuart Schleien, Fredrick Green, and Charlsena Stone, ―the concept of inclusion
is a continuum of three levels of acceptance ranging from a physical level to a social level.
Social inclusion, the final and highest level can be achieved only after the first two levels of
inclusion have been met.‖5
4
Shafik Abu-Tahir as cited in Dattilo, 2002, p. 26
5
Stuart Schleien, Fredrick Green, and Charlsena Stone (1999) Levels of Inclusion;
www.indiana.edu/~nca/leisureed/inclusion2.html

17. pg. 17
Inclusion: A Continuum of Acceptance
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Physical Integration Functional Inclusion Social Inclusion
 An individual with
disability has the
right to access
public buildings
and facilities
including polling
centres.
 He/she should have
unhindered access
to voting materials
including ballot
papers and boxes.
 He/she should have
unhindered access
to all electoral
public information.
An individual with disability should
have a sense of fulfilment and the
opportunity to be successful within a
given environment. This may be
manifested in:
 Participating in election
management activities;
 Participate in all citizens
engagements including
consultations with EMBs;
 Voting freely,
independently and with
utmost secrecy as required
by law;
 Participating in election
monitoring; and
 Participating in all manner
of lawful political activities.
 Inclusion rooted in laws and
policies can only achieve
limited (legalistic and
institutional) compliance.
 One's ability to participate in
positive social interactions
facilitated through electoral
and political activities is
internally motivated and it is
only by embracing inclusion as
a value that this level can be
achieved.
 Social inclusion cannot be
mandated.6
Democracy becomes fully participatory only when there is equal, free and fair opportunity for
all citizens to participate in the social, economic and political space. According to Open Idea,
"Democracy (participatory governance) is either direct or indirect. Direct means holding
elected positions while indirect is by voting which is facilitated by inclusive elections -
involving and facilitating all, through the entire electoral process. Democracy - Participatory
governance: Inclusive elections explain globally that democracy means involving all in
decision making. It further states that participatory governance is either direct (when people
hold elected positions) or indirect when people vote those in power. For elections to be
inclusive all strata of populations must be involved in the electoral phases and the system in
place must ensure all measures are put in place (assistive technologies, transportation means
etc.) to facilitate the involvement of every eligible voter (irrespective of geography, ability or
disorders - hearing, visual, cognitive/language, physical, seizure and multiple impairments;
aged, mobile personnel as soldiers etc.) to partake in the electoral process."7
Exclusion of PWDs from electoral process manifest in various forms, ranging from;
 little or no consultation in the development of electoral laws, policies and regulations,
and their inadequate to access and participate in the election
 exclusion from participating in the administration of EMBs (Election Monitoring
Board), exclusion from the processes of designing and planning of election logistics
including voting materials, voting venues, etc;
6
Adapted from: www.indiana.edu/~nca/leisureed/inclusion2.html
7
International Disability Alliance contribution to OHCHR Thematic Study on "The participation of persons with
disabilities in political and public life" www.openideo.com/challenge/voting/inspiration/democracy-
participatory-governance-inclusive-elections.

18. pg. 18
 little or no involvement in the training of election officials
 little or no access to election and political media information
 inaccessible ballot papers and voting machines, voting centres, etc;
 Exclusion from election monitoring activities.
1.4 Stakeholders in the Conduct of Inclusive and Accessible Electoral Process
Virtually every actor in the political and democratic space has roles to play in ensuring that
the process is as inclusive and accessible as possible. In conducting this advocacy, DPAI and
LACSOP identified and reviewed the roles of some state and non-state actors.
1.4.1 Political Parties
As effective instrument of political mobilization, interest aggregation and articulation as well
as indispensable channel of ascending political power, political parties must demonstrate
interest and advance policies that reflect the conglomerate of interest (including those of the
marginalized groups) in society.
Political parties in Nigeria have paid limited attention to the imperative of enunciating
constitutional provision on the rights and privileges of the marginalized groups and strategic
Picture 1: A persons with visual impairment
standing behind electoral officers to observe
proceeding at a polling unit.

19. pg. 19
policies and programmes in their manifestos. Besides this documentary policy initiative,
political parties have also substantially failed to develop pragmatic strategy on the
mainstreaming of PWDs in the structures and processes.
Such strategy must include creation of Disability Desks in Party Secretariats/offices, ensure
accessibility to the offices, include representation of PWDs in the decision-making organs
and grant special waivers for aspiring PWDs on becoming candidates of the party. Other
measures needed are strategy for recruitment and retention of PWD members and a data base
of members for easy and prompt mobilization. Political Parties are also expected to ensure
their internal and external communication are conducted in easily readable formats e.g., use
of simple languages, Braille or tactile and sign language interpretation. These inadequacies
have limited the ability of PWDs to participate effectively in political parties‘ activities and
thereby deprive them the electoral opportunities it bestows.
1.4.2 Civil Society Organizations CSOs
CSOs, particularly those working in the field of disabilities have in no small measure
influenced the 2015 elections. Many of such organisations at different locations have
engaged in advocacy for more inclusion of persons with disabilities in the electoral process.
For instance, Disability Policy and Advocacy Initiative (DPAI) in collaboration with the
Lagos State Civil Society Partnership (LACSOP) and with the support of the DFID State
Accountability & Voice Initiative (SAVI) developed the checklist for monitoring elections to
ensure inclusiveness. This Monitoring Checklist was translated to the umbrella body of
Disability CSOs in Nigeria - Joint National Association of Persons with Disabilities
[JONAPWD] for adoption and ownership.
JONAPWD used the Checklist to engage INEC at the national level, while DPAI engaged
INEC at the Lagos State and South-West level. The outcome of these engagements is that the
awareness and sensitivity INEC had towards the participation of persons with disabilities was
heightened in the build up of the 2015 elections. Accordingly INEC took specific steps to
promote the inclusion of persons with disabilities in the elections.
From the state of voter education through the conduct of the elections and announcement of
result, different disability organisations worked collaboratively to make the 2015 election
inclusive. It is on record that Disability Organisations such as DPAI published and circulated
IEC materials encouraging persons with disabilities to get involved in the electoral process,
while calling on the general public to assist persons with disabilities to participate in the
elections. All these are in accordance with INEC priority voting policy. Association of sign
Language Interpreters of Nigeria on their own part worked in collaboration with INEC to
create inclusion and access for the deaf at various voters and civic engagement forum and to
get the elections results interpreted in sign Language. Transition Monitoring Group (TMG)
was also handy to facilitate election monitoring by persons with disabilities and their
organisations.
On the whole, there was a considerable improvement in the activities of CSOs in fostering the
inclusion of persons with disabilities in the electoral process in this present dispensation.

20. pg. 20
1.4.3 Police/Security
The main role of security agencies during an Election is to maintain order and to create by
means of effective policing, a favourable climate in which a democratic election can take
place.
The Nigeria police in carrying out this role, between 1999-2015, have lacked adequate
capacity to effectively address the regular incidences of violence during electoral process.
What was predominantly the norm can be described as the heavy presence of security
operatives across the polling units in the country, with several artificial road blocks mounted
by heavily armed men and women of the military forces days prior to election days, curfew
or restriction of movements in place in most cases. Security officials are mostly stern looking,
and their rifles in their arms seeming ready to fire.
These unapproachable demeanour will intimidate even the best intending civilian and against
the terms of inclusion which states ―An individual with disability having a sense of fulfilment
and the opportunity to be successful within a given environment.‖ These militarized political
atmosphere impacts negatively on many people especially people with disabilities and other
vulnerable groups. Being self-conscious of their disability and vulnerability, and as a safety
measure, they often stay away from the election, at the heavy cost of not casting their votes,
exercising their franchise and fundamental human right. This was evidenced in the Ekiti and
Osun 2014 gubernatorial elections.
The security agencies can be more effective and consciously inclusive in its duties during
elections and other elections related activities within the context of National Security that has
a high premium for democratic Policing and with due regards to its core values. Towards
future elections starting from 2015, the Civil Society especially stakeholders in inclusive
elections privy to democratic policing advocated for inclusive electoral process among all
stakeholders including the security agencies.
Democratic Policing is a philosophy to guide police management styles, policies, strategies
and operational performance. It is practiced within the following key principles:
 Relies upon active partnership between the citizens (community) and the Police;
 Ensure that the Security Agencies view their primary role as the provision of quality
service to the community;
 Entails that the police adopt a problem solving approach to their work;
 Requires that the Police and the National Security and Civil Defence involve the
community in the determination of policing priorities
Having this in mind, democratic policing therefore embraces the following values
(i) Respect for and protection of human rights
(ii) Transparency and openness in relation to activities and relationship within and
outside the security organizations
(iii) Demonstrable commitment at all times to deliver the best possible service
(iv)Willingness to seek, listen to and act upon public opinion relating to policing
priorities

21. pg. 21
1.4.4 MEDIA
The media, particularly electronic media, play a crucial role in shaping voter interest in, and
attitudes about inclusive election. The way the media portray persons with disability, how
they deal with issues of special concern to PWDs and whether they convey effectual voter
education messages can have a major impact on PWDs participation in an election.
In general, election laws and media laws create a framework for the role of the media in
elections. In reality, however, media regulations and practices may indirectly disadvantage
PWDs when issues that affect them are not understood.
1.4.5. National and State Legislatures
The National and State legislatures have the sole responsibilities to make laws; appropriate
funds and resources as well as conduct oversight over the activities of the executive arm and
all agencies of government including the election management bodies.
As earlier noted, the National Assembly has not fared well enough in its responsibilities to
ensure that the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act adequately mainstream and provide
for the needs of PWDs. In fact, it is safe to assume that the National Assembly is generally
less sensitive towards issues of inclusion and disability as far as the electoral process is
concerned.
At the state level, most State Houses of assembly have also done virtually nothing to promote
inclusion in the laws establishing their State Independent Electoral Commissions (SIECs).
However, few states including Lagos and Ekiti have enacted Disability Laws which generally
promote the inclusion of PWDs in the political and electoral processes.
1.4.6 International Development Agencies
These agencies have provided huge support to relevant governmental and nongovernmental
institutions working on the electoral process. The development agencies often enter into
partnership with the election management bodies especially the Independent National
Electoral Commission (INEC) by providing funding and capacity-building.
While these agencies have over the years made efforts to promote inclusion of PWDs, their
interventions have basically focused on supporting CSO advocacies; with very little attention
towards the institutional development and capacity-building of INEC, political parties, the
media, etc. Thus far, no attention and support have been given towards development of
Disability Data Base (DDB) for the electoral process; an aspect which has been identified to
be very critical to all on-going efforts to promote inclusive electoral process. Even where
support is given, development agencies do little to monitor compliance.
1.4.7. Election Management Bodies EMBs
In the Nigerian context, INEC and the SIECs are at the forefront of managing elections at the
national and state levels respectively. Since independence, EMBs in Nigeria generally lack
awareness, as well as the institutional and human capacities to ensure effective inclusion and
access of PWDs in all aspects of the electoral process.

22. pg. 22
Since the second republic of 1979 up to the pre-AtahiruJega
years of INEC in the current democratic dispensation, no EMB
in Nigeria is noted to have strategically and constructively
engaged PWDs, DPOs and other interested stakeholders on
issues of inclusive and accessible electoral process. For
instance, prior to the DPAI & LACSOP-lead advocacy and
partnership with INEC, no EMB in Nigeria have ever produced
voter and civic education materials including media jingles in
accessible formats for PWDs.
This long years of poor institutional and human capacity on the
part of previous and present EMBs, have been the major
reasons for the persistent exclusion of PWDs from effectively
participating in the electoral process.
1.5 Advocacy for Inclusive and Accessible 2015 General
Elections
The Lagos State Civil Society Partnership (LACSOP), the
umbrella body for all network of CSOs in Lagos State in
partnership with Disability Policy and Advocacy Initiative
(DPAI) with support from DFID‘s State Accountability and
Voice Initiative (SAVI),IRI and NHRC considered it apt and
timely to make a strategic intervention to conduct an advocacy
with critical stakeholders especially the Independent National
Electoral Commission (INEC) on possibilities of ensuring
increased and improved participation of PWDs in the 2015
general elections
The LACSOP/DPAI lead advocacy was initiated with a desk
review and the development of a Monitoring Checklist in
Lagos. The draft report and the checklist were presented for
stakeholders‘ validation at zonal level in Ibadan at the
southwest, and at the national level in Abuja. DPOs, CSOs,
INEC, political parties, the media and international
development partners actively participated at the validation
meetings.
LACSOP and DPAI equally demonstrated the possibility of
producing inclusive and accessible media jingles as well as
civic and voter education materials in Lagos. Here are links to
some of the Inclusive voter and civic education media Jingles:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W23_63Ouyf88
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTnXprT6hqk9
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10HySAI4jSw10
8
Civic and Voter Education Media Jingle produced by DPAI & LACSOP in collaboration with INEC and
Media Partners in November, 2014.
9
Ibid.
10
Ibid.
Picture 2 A sample of the IEC material on
priority voting.
Picture 3: A cross section of CSO members
at an engagement with INEC.

23. pg. 23
The key outcome of these engagements included:
 Adoption of the monitoring checklist by INEC: At the presentation of the Monitoring
checklist to INEC in its Abuja head quarters on July 22nd
2014. The Chairman pledged
that INEC will adopt the checklist for use during the 2015 general elections.
 Conduct of National Conference on Inclusion and Participation of PWDs in the 2015
General Elections: In December, 2014, INEC organized a National Conference to
gather expert views on how to effectively include PWDs in the general elections. At
the Conference, INEC pledged to use knowledge and information obtained to develop
an inclusive electoral policy.
 Collaboration between DPAI, LACSOP, INEC and a cross section of media
organizations to produce inclusive and accessible voter and civic education materials:
For the first time in Nigeria, inclusive and accessible formats of voter and civic
education and communications materials in Braille and large print, including sign
interpreted audiovisual media jingles were produced. This was a demonstration
activity with support from the Lagos office of DFID-SAVI intended to encourage
INEC towards taking similar actions. The media organizations aired the media jingles
for several weeks before the elections free of charge.
 Invitation of PWDs to various Stakeholders Consultative Meetings: At both national
and state levels, INEC ensured that PWDs were invited to its various stakeholders'
consultative meetings. At these meetings, all INEC‘s civic and voter education
materials were produced in accessible formats while sign interpreters were provided
for the deaf. Most of the events were held in accessible venues for wheelchair users.
 INEC Partnered with LACSOP and DPAI to Produce Posters on Priority Voting: In
Lagos State, INEC financially sponsored the production of public enlightenment
posters on priority voting which was produced by LACSOP and DPAI

24. pg. 24
CHAPTER 2
INTERNATIONAL, REGIONAL, NATIONAL AND STATE LAWS /
POLICIES ON INCLUSIVE ELECTIONS
2.0 Introduction
Despite its importance, the electoral process in Nigeria is still one in which persons with
disabilities suffer exclusion and denial of access to equal participation, albeit tacitly. Though
international instruments such as the CRPD provide for full political participation of PWDs,
the implementation of such provisions would be as specifically stipulated by local
legislations. Unfortunately, successive electoral laws that have been operated ever since the
democratic history of Nigeria have not really been inclusive of PWDs. That is to say that the
electoral laws of Nigeria have been oblivious of the need for the full and equal participation
of Persons with disabilities in the electoral process. Specifically, there are no legal provisions
for the effective participation of persons with disabilities at the different stages of the
electoral process namely, voter registration, voter education, accreditation, collation, result
announcement etc. The mention of disability issues in the successive electoral laws in Nigeria
has always only been in terms of the visually impaired persons been allowed to be assisted to
vote by a third party. This obviously compromises the secrecy and security of the vote of the
affected person. In other words, there is no guarantee that the vote of the visually impaired
voter in question will actually be cast for the candidate of his choice. Even when such votes
are actually cast according to the instruction of the said visually impaired person, the element
of secrecy will be absent.
Government at the various levels as well as the successive election management bodies
treated the participation of persons with disabilities in the electoral process rather as a non-
issue. However, as a result of effective advocacy by disability rights activist and disability
organizations with the support of development partners such as the State Accountability and
Voice Initiative (SAVI) of the DFID, the 2015 general election has become a remarkable
improvement in the inclusion and participation of persons with disabilities on all fronts.
In this chapter, we review provisions of relevant electoral legal and policy frameworks and
considerations with a view to identifying their strengths and weaknesses in ensuring inclusive
and accessible electoral process for PWDs in Nigeria. Due to time, availability and
accessibility of records, we are able to review the Electoral Decree of 1977, Electoral Acts of
1982, 2001, 2002, 2006 and 2010 as amended respectively. The INEC Strategic Plan of 2012
to 2016 is also reviewed to ascertain the level of policy commitment to the inclusion of
PWDs in the electoral process in line with global best practices and the spirit of national
integration as espoused by the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
2.1 Electoral Laws and Experiences in Inclusive Elections: 1977 to 2010
Besides the Constitution, Electoral laws have been the major legal framework for the conduct
of all elections in Nigeria. Specific provisions are made for the composition and conduct of
the election management body, political parties and other stakeholders. Also, the conducts
and participation of citizens, provision of electoral materials and infrastructure, among others

25. pg. 25
are also provided. For this purpose, we examine some electoral laws which have been
implemented since the 1979 second republic to date.
Section 50 of the electoral Decree, 1977 provides as follows:
“A voter who is blind or is otherwise unable to distinguish
symbols or who suffers any other physical disability may be
accompanied into the polling station by a friend or relative
chosen by him and the friend or relative shall after informing
the presiding officer of the disability be permitted to
accompany the voter into the voting compartment and assist
the voter to make his left thumb mark, on the left side of the
symbol nominated by the voter, to insert the ballot paper in
the envelope and to seal the envelope.”
This was repealed by the Electoral Act of 1982 which repeated the same provision in section
52.
Section 51 of the Electoral Act of 2001 repeated the said provision only with a minor
modification as follows:
“A voter who is blind or is otherwise unable to distinguish
symbols or who suffers any other physical disability may be
accompanied into the polling station by a person chosen by
him and the person shall after informing the Presiding
Officer of the disability, be permitted to accompany the voter
into the voting compartment and assist the voter to make his
mark in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the
Commission.”
This provision was repeated verbatim as section 47 of the Electoral Act, 2002; and section 57
of the Electoral Act 2006. Presently section 56 of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended)
retains the said provision with only a minute modification as follows:
“A voter who is blind or is otherwise unable to distinguish
symbols or who suffers any other physical disability may be
accompanied into the polling unit by a person chosen by him
and the person shall after informing the Presiding Officer of
the disability, be permitted to accompany the voter into the
voting compartment and assist the voter to make his mark in
accordance with the procedure prescribed by the
Commission.”
Other provisions of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended that could also be of relevance to
effective inclusion and accessibility for PWDs are as follows:
Section 42: The Commission shall establish sufficient number of polling units in each
registration area and shall allot voters to such polling unit.
NOTE: It is important that these polling units be made accessible to PWDs.

26. pg. 26
Section 43: The Commission shall provide suitable boxes for the conduct of election.
NOTE: The ballot boxes should have brailed inscription to guide the blind.
Section 44: The Commission shall prescribe the format of the ballot papers which shall
include the symbol adopted by the political party of the candidate and such
other information as it may require.
NOTE: Brailed ballot papers would assist the blind to vote independently.
Section 51: Provides that: The Presiding Officer shall separate the queue between men
and women if in that area of the country the culture is such that it does not
permit mingling of men and woman in the same queue.
NOTE: For the purpose of convenience, similar separate queue may be made of PWDs so
that they can be more easily attended to.
Section 56 provides as follows:
“A voter who is blind or is otherwise unable to distinguish
symbols or who suffers any other physical disability may be
accompanied into the polling unit by a person chosen by him
and the person shall after informing the Presiding Officer of
the disability, be permitted to accompany the voter into the
voting compartment and assist the voter to make his mark in
accordance with the procedure prescribed by the
Commission.”
NOTE: Much as this is good, efforts should be made toward a situation where the blind and
other PWDs can be totally independent while voting. Situation where they need to be
accompanied in another to cast their votes makes them susceptible to exploitation.
Nonetheless, within the period 1999 to date, series of elections did hold with marginal
participation of PWDs. Basically, as noted earlier, the provision made for them was limited
to vote casting that was devoid of secrecy and independence. This negates the spirit of
democracy wherein the people are to exercise their franchise in secret without a third party
intervention.
2.2 INEC Strategic Programme of Action 2012-2016
The following objectives, activities and indicators in the INEC Strategic Programme of
Action are considerations upon which the 2014 to 2015 citizens‘ advocacies for inclusive
elections were based:
Objective One: To provide electoral operations, systems and infrastructure to
support delivery of free, fair and credible elections

27. pg. 27
1.1Objectives: Ensure a good constitutional and legal framework for the conduct of
free, fair and credible elections
Activities: Policies to allow Out of Country Voting (OCV) and voting by marginalized
groups
Indicators: Proposed areas of Constitutional and Electoral Act amendments completed by
Q2 2013.
1.7 Objectives: To provide infrastructure to support delivery of free, fair and credible
elections
Activities: Provision of voting cubicles and infrastructures at all Polling Units for
physically challenged person
Indicators: Contract awarded & completed by Q2 2014
Objective Two: To improve voter education, training and research
2.2 Objectives Formulate and Implement Training Programmes
Activities: Review of election manuals to accommodate persons with disabilities
Indicators: Approval secured by Q1each and training conducted by Feb. 2013, 2014
2.5 Objectives Formulate and implement policies to ensure participation of
marginalized groups including persons with disability as well as Out of
Country Voting (OCV)
Activities: Enhance the participation of Persons Living with Disabilities (PLWD) as well
as Out of Country Voting (OCV) on the electoral process
Indicators: Approval secured for conduct of zonal workshops by Q2 2013, 2014 & Q1
2015
As we shall observe in subsequent chapters, most of these objectives, activities and indicators
were not achieved before and during the conduct of the 2015 general elections. This therefore
hindered the inclusion and participation of PWDs in the electoral process.
2.3 Provisions of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria for the
Conduct of Inclusive and Accessible Electoral Process
Chapter II of the 1999 Nigeria Constitution: Fundamental Objectives and Directive
Principles of State Policy
Section 13. It shall be the duty and responsibility of all organs of government, and of all
authorities and persons, exercising legislative, executive or judicial powers, to
conform to, observe and apply the provisions of this Chapter of this
Constitution.

28. pg. 28
Section 14. (1) The Federal Republic of Nigeria shall be a State based on the
Principles of democracy and social justice.
(2) It is hereby, accordingly, declared that:
(c) The participation by the people in their government shall be
ensured in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.
Section 17. (1) The State social order is founded on ideals of freedom, equality and
Justice.
(2) In furtherance of the social order-
(a) Every citizen shall have equality of rights, obligations and
opportunities before the law;
The combined effect of the above sections of the Constitution directs all organs of
government in Nigeria to ensure that all citizens participate in their government according to
the provisions of the constitution.
Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution: Fundamental Rights
Section 42 (1) A citizen of Nigeria of a particular community, ethnic group,
place of origin, sex, religion or political opinion shall not, by
reason only that he is such a person:-
(a) be subjected either expressly by, or in the practical
application of, any law in force in Nigeria or any executive
or administrative action of the government, to disabilities
or restrictions to which citizens of Nigeria of other
communities, ethnic groups, places of origin, sex, religious
or political opinions are not made subject; or
(b) be accorded either expressly by, or in the practical
application of, any law in force in Nigeria or any such
executive or administrative action, any privilege or
advantage that is not accorded to citizens of Nigeria of
other communities, ethnic groups, places of origin, sex,
religious or political opinions.
(2) No citizen of Nigeria shall be subjected to any disability, restriction
or deprivation merely by reason of the circumstances of his birth.
Section IV of the 1999 Constitution protects the rights of all citizens from any
disability or deprivation by reason of circumstances of birth.
Chapter VI of the 1999 Constitution: Political Parties
Section 222 No association by whatever name called shall function as a party, unless -
(b) The membership of the association is open to every citizen of Nigeria
irrespective of his place of origin, circumstance of birth, sex, religion
or ethnic grouping;
There should be no barriers from registering as a member of a political party in Nigeria.

29. pg. 29
These constitutional provisions notwithstanding, the rights of PWDs to effectively participate
in the electoral process have been generally eroded by successive election management
bodies, political parties and other stakeholders in the electoral process.
2.4 Contributions of State Disability Laws to the Conduct of Inclusive and
Accessible Electoral Process in Nigeria
The 1999 Constitution as amended provides for the establishment of State Independent
Electoral Commissions (SIECs) to conduct local government elections. The SIECs, in
conjunction with INEC make all necessary administrative and logistic provisions for the
conduct of local government elections.
The provisions of the 1999 Constitution as amended, the 2010 Electoral Act as amended and
other relevant international and local statutes notwithstanding, it is expected that state-level
disability laws make relevant provisions to guarantee the inclusion and participation of PWDs
in political and electoral activities in the state. For this purpose therefore, we review the Ekiti
and Lagos state disability laws.
2.4.1 Ekiti State Rights of Persons with Disabilities Law 2013
Section 18; Right to Political Participation
(1) The State Independent Electoral Commission shall ensure that all
polling stations are accessible to persons with disabilities and that all
materials related to the electoral process are easily understandable by
and accessible to persons with disabilities.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in sub–
section (1), the measures undertaken by an Electoral Commission in
pursuance of that sub–section shall include:
a). the construction and availability of ramps at all polling
Booths
b). Separate queues for persons with disabilities at all polling
booths with clear pictorial signs;
c). The availability of ballot papers and/or electronic voting
machines with candidates’ information available in Braille
and other accessible formats;
d). the fitting of audio devices to electronic voting machines;
e). Training programs to sensitize polling officers about the
special requirements of persons with disabilities.
(3) If the Presiding Officer of a polling booth is satisfied that, due to
disability, a person with disability is unable to recognize the symbols
or to record vote without assistance, the presiding officer shall permit
the elector to take a companion of not less than eighteen years of age
to the voting compartment for recording/casting the vote.
2.4.2 Lagos State Special Peoples Law, 2011

30. pg. 30
Prohibition from Discrimination and Harmful Treatment.
21. (1) No person living with disability shall be discriminated against on the
ground of his or her disability by any person or institution in any manner or
circumstances whatsoever.
Right to Freedom.
30. (1) Persons living with disability shall have freedom of expression and opinion,
Including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas
through any means of communication of their choice.
(2) Government, Corporate organization and persons shall:
(a) provide information intended for the general public to persons living
with disability in accessible formats and technologies appropriate to
the different kinds of disabilities timely and at no additional cost;
(b) Accept and facilitate the use of sign languages, Braille, augmentative
and alternative communication in all interactions.
In spite of the provisions made by these state disability laws, there are no evidences to show
that the conduct of local government elections in these states have made adequate provisions
for the inclusion of PWDs.
2.5 Contributions of International Statutes to the Conduct of Inclusive and
Accessible Electoral Process in Nigeria
Nigeria is signatory to several international statutes and a few of them have been
domesticated through acts of the Nigerian Legislature as required by Section 12 of the 1999
Constitution as amended. Some of these statutes provide for the respect of rights of PWDs as
well as their inclusion and participation in all spheres of life in Nigeria. For this purpose, we
review the African Charter on Human and Peoples Right (ACHPR) and the United Nations
Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) respectively.
2.5.1 The African Charter on Human and Peoples Right (ACHPR)
Article 18(4) of ACHPR provides that:
“The aged and disabled shall also have the right to special
measure of protection in keeping with their physical or moral
need.”
Article 13 of the ACHPR provides as follows:
“Every citizen shall have the right to participate freely in the
government of his country, either directly or through freely
chosen representatives in accordance with the provisions of
the law.”
The African Charter has been domesticated in Nigeria by an Act of the National Assembly.
Therefore the above provision can be invoked to cater for the aged and persons with

31. pg. 31
disability at elections. Accordingly, the INEC priority voting policy is in perfect alignment
with this provision of the Law.
2.5.2 United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD)
The UNCRPD was adopted on 13 December 2006 during the sixty-first session of the
General Assembly by resolution A/RES/61/106.
Nigeria joined a number of countries in declaring support for disability rights on Friday, 24th
September 2010, signing both the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
(CRPD) and its Optional Protocol. Nigeria became the 94th
country to ratify the Convention
and 58th
to ratify the Optional Protocol.
The CRPD is the first international, legally binding human rights treaty targeted at
comprehensively protecting the human rights of people with disabilities. Article 29 of this
Convention generally provides for ―Participation in political and public life.‖ Specifically, it
enjoins ―State Parties‖ to guarantee to persons with disabilities political rights and the
opportunity to enjoy them on an equal basis with others. Furthermore, the article demands
that State parties shall undertake ensuring that voting procedures, facilities and materials are
appropriate, accessible and easy to understand and use.
Right to vote in the CRPD
ISG Top Voter, a machine designed specifically to be used by voters with disabilities.11
Some democracies, e.g., the US, Japan, Netherlands, Slovenia, Albania and India12
make the
necessary reasonable accommodation allowing persons with disability to cast their votes
independently using electronic voting machines and other aides which help disabled voters to
fill the paper ballot. In some others countries such as Azerbaijan, Kosovo, Canada, Ghana,
United Kingdom, and most of African and Asian countries,13
visually impaired voters can use
ballots in Braille or paper ballot templates.
Many of these and also some other democracies, Chile14
for example, use adjustable desks so
that voters on wheelchairs can approach them. Some democracies only allow another person
11
Source: www.elections.ca
12
Ibid.
13
Ibid.
14
Ibid.

32. pg. 32
to cast a ballot for the blind or disabled voter. Such arrangement, however, does not assure
independence or secrecy of the ballot.
In some democracies, i.e. Sweden and the US,15
all the polling places already are fully
accessible for disabled voters.
Generally speaking, a country ratifying treaty is an indication of her approval of its
provisions. This may necessitate the country modifying some of her existing laws to bring
them in conformity with the ratified treaty.
However, in Nigeria, by virtue of section 12 of 1999 Constitution, an international
Convention like the UNCRPD, would need to be domesticated by an act of the National
Assembly before it can assume the force of Law in Nigeria. The domestication of the
UNCRPD has not been done in Nigeria, and to that extent, the effect of the Convention in
Nigeria is at best merely persuasive, and not binding.
2.6 Summary
From the above appraisal of local and international statues viz-a-viz the issues of inclusive
and accessible electoral process for PWDs in Nigeria, we observe that the key challenge is
not substantially in the inadequacy of legal and policy frame works. Rather, it is more with
the poor enforcement of, and/or compliance with existing laws.
We acknowledge that the 1999 Constitution as amended, the 2010 Electoral Act as amended
and other relevant national and sub-national legal and policy frameworks require urgent and
necessary amendments to meet with international standards and best practice in the conduct
of inclusive and accessible electoral process. Nonetheless, PWDs and other advocacy groups
should begin their advocacies by holding government, election management bodies, political
parties and other responsible agencies accountable for the full implementation of, and
compliance with existing laws.
15
Ibid.

33. pg. 33
Chapter 3
DESCRIPTIVE NARRATIVES OF ACTIVITIES BEFORE, DURING
AND AFTER THE 2015 GENERAL ELECTIONS
3.0 Introduction
World over, democracy is considered the best and most progressive form of government.
Nigeria began a stable and ever growing democratic journey in 1999 after the first, second
and third republics were truncated. However, since the restoration of democracy, the
challenge of ensuring inclusion and access of all citizens in the political and electoral
processes irrespective of their social, ethnic, economic, gender and disability status has
remained seemingly irresolvable
As the 2015 general elections approached, civil society
groups, especially disabled people‘s organizations and
international development agencies in Nigeria stepped-
up advocacies to ensure substantial inclusion and
access for persons with disabilities, women, the
elderly and other excluded groups in the political and
electoral processes. With the support of the State
Accountability and Voice Initiative (SAVI) of the
DFID in Lagos, LACSOP and DPAI set up the CSO
2015 General Elections Situation Room to monitor
and observe the activities before, during and after the
elections.
This chapter describes, in narrative terms, the observed
happenings at the 2015 elections at the federal and
state levels. Realizing that elections are not just about
the happenings on election days, it considers what
transpired, pre, during and post voting process and the
part played by different stakeholders.
3.1 Pre-election
It is common knowledge that voting for the right people is the first step in the journey of a
thousand miles that will lead to the Promised Land of good and inclusive governance. To get
the desired votes, political parties engage in campaigns. Having witnessed many elections,
the 2015 election campaigns remains the most passionate, so far, dividing many friends and
in some cases relatives along party, ethnic and religious lines. The campaigns witnessed the
involvement of women, youths and Persons with Disabilities (PWDs).
The bar of campaigns was raised as political parties went to every nook and cranny,
employing many strategies to woo electorates. The usual political debates by candidates took
place though some candidates declined.
More Nigerians became more politically conscious and active unlike the previous sheer
apathy. Engaging in political discussions in busses, on queues, at newspapers vendors‘
Picture 1: Dwarfs celebrating
with a candidate at a political
rally in Lagos.
Picture 2: CSO members
presenting IEC on voter’s
registration in Lagos, Nigeria

34. pg. 34
stands, canteens etc became very common. Most Nigerian youths became hyperactive on the
social media space which provided an inexpensive platform of sharing political opinions.
Admittedly, many used uncouth language and insults at the slightest provocation, albeit, they
played their part.
The Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) were not left out as many of them facilitated town
hall meetings which the political parties and INEC bought into. CSOs pushed for all-inclusive
manifestoes and deliverables in favour of women, youths and PWDs. For instance, in Lagos,
LACSOP organized and participated at several citizens consultative forum. LACSOP also
developed and presented a Citizens Charter to gubernatorial and State Assembly candidates
to elicit their commitment to people-oriented laws and policies should they emerge as
winners. LACSOP also conducted Mandate Protection Campaigns among the citizens;
distributing Mandate Protection leaflets (See Appendix C) across the state with a view to
enlighten them on the need to protect their votes, hold elected leaders accountable to their
campaign promises and identify the roles and responsibilities of key stakeholders in the
electoral process.
At the heart of the CSO-lead advocacies before the elections was the need to ensure inclusion
and access for PWDs. LACSOP collaborated with DPAI in Lagos state to conduct several
engagements with INEC, political parties, the media and other stakeholders in this respect.
These efforts stimulated more responsiveness on the part of INEC which ensured that access
of PWDs to electoral information such as civic and voter education and media materials were
reasonably enhanced. As political party campaigns heightened, for the first time ever in the
political history of Nigeria, parties ensured that they had sign language interpreters at most of
their campaign rallies across the states while INEC public announcements carried on
television were interpreted by sign language experts.16
However, in many cases, the campaign was more of unabashed calumny with the tactic of
embarrassing mudslinging of candidates and supporters. The social media became a battle
ground where ethnic and religious motivated hatred and threats of violence were spewed.
People cared less about ‗civility‘ as information of yester years were bandied about like
gospel, defaming one another without a care about the offences of slander and libel. This
increased all manner of apprehension from scuttling the exercise to outright war. In fact some
predicted the end of the entity called Nigeria!
There was disgraceful crumbs distribution in form of money, telephone handsets and food
stuffs, leaving much blame on the desk of INEC due to its inability to regulate political
campaign finances.
INEC is created by the constitution and empowered by section 154 of the Electoral Act to
conduct civic education and enlightenment in the print and electronic media to enhance its
functions. One of the functions according to section 2 is promoting knowledge of sound
democratic election processes. INEC‘s part in pre-election matters like qualification for
registration and acceptable campaign standards left much to be desired. For instance contrary
to section 95(1) of the Electoral Act prohibiting tainted, abusive, intemperate, slanderous
political campaign or slogan likely to injure religious, ethnic, tribal or sectional feelings.
Many candidates were not only labelled by their ethnicity and religion but caricatured,
provoking negative reactions from their supporters. Again, in direct contravention of
Subsection (3) Places designated for religious worship, and public office were used for
16
IRI report p.5

35. pg. 35
political campaigns, rallies, processions, promotion and shredding of political parties,
candidates, and their programs. In the face of subsections (5) and (6), our media was
inundated with news of burnings and killings of members and properties of the opposition,
acts perpetuated by loyalist groups who many times possessed arms. Despite the commission
of these offences, nobody was seen to be prosecuted not to talk of paying the penalty of N1,
000,000.00 or imprisonment for the term or 12 months; and (b) in the case of a political party,
to a fine or N2, 000,000.00 in the first instance, and N1, 000,000.00 for any subsequent
offence as provided under the Law. Section 130, penalize giving or accepting of money or
any other inducement for voting or refraining from voting after the date of an election has
been announced with the fine of N100.000.00 or imprisonment for a term of 12 months or
both. Every form of inducement was distributed at campaign rallies. Even those who voted
the other way despite the inducements could be guilty of ‗receiving…‘
Some have excused INEC for overlooking some of its functions because it grappled with the
task of distributing the Permanent Voters Card (PVC) to majority of registered voters.
Unfortunately, some Nigerians were disenfranchised by inability to collect PVCs.
The security agents tried to quell tension but it did not stop, residents of different tribes
fleeing home in droves especially wives and children due to apprehension of electoral
violence.
The media did its best in informing Nigerians of the happenings though some of them did not
only exhibit party preference but descended into the arena of politics in terms of reportage
and coverage.
3.2 During Election
3.2.1 Presidential and National Assembly Elections
The presidential and National Assembly elections held on the 28th
of March, 2015, and their
aftermath have increased Nigeria‘s stature around the globe. The presidential position had 14
contestants with only one being female, though the vice president‘s position had four
females.17
None of the candidates was a PWD but National Conscience Party (NCP) had a
PWD contest for senatorial position in Delta state.18
The presidential election had a massive
turnout of Nigerians who stood under the rain and scorching sun across the country to vote
for their preferred candidates. It is worthy of mention that all the presidential candidates got
votes in all the states.19
17
final list of presidential and national assembly candidates for 2015 general elections available @
http://www.inecnigeria.org/?page_id=3508 accessed 6th
May 2015 President Goodluck Jonathan (PDP),
General Muhammad Buhari (APC), Prof. Comfort Oluremi Sonaiya (Kowa), Ambrose Albert (HDP), Ganiyu
Galadima (ACPN), Rafiu Salau(AD), Dr.Nani Ibrahim Ahmad (ADC), Martin Onovo (NCP), Tunde
Anifowoshe-Kelani (AA), Chekwas Okorie (UPP), Ayeni Musa Adebayo (APA), Sam Eke (CPP), Allagoa Kelvin
Chinedu (PPN), Godson Mgbodile Ohaenyem (UDP).
18
IRI report p.5
19
2015 Presidential election result available @ http://www.inecnigeria.org/?inecnews=2015-presidential-
election-result-2 accessed 6th
May 2015.

36. pg. 36
Observed media reports across the country indicated the participation of PWDs, women
(including pregnant women) and the elderly who defied all their accessibility challenges to
participate in the voting exercise.
3.2.2 Gubernatorial and State Assembly Elections
Nigeria‘s 36 governors have considerable sway being chief executive officers in their
different states. The governorship elections held in
29 out of the 36 states on April 11th
2015. Elections
were not held in 7 states20
though the House of
Assembly elections were conducted in all the 36
states. There were 760 contestants with only 24
female gubernatorial candidates and 63 deputy
gubernatorial candidates. None of the gubernatorial
candidates was a PWD but PDP had two PWD
candidates for state assembly elections in Plateau
and Jigawa.21
It was observed that turnout of voters
during gubernatorial elections was lower than the
presidential.
During the presidential and gubernatorial elections,
it was observed that PWDs, elderly and pregnant
women experienced priority voting in many polling
units. Women, youths and PWDs participated as
party agents, for instance some political parties presented PWDs for training as party agents
in Adamawa and OndoStates. Again women, youth and disability groups like JONAPWD
and Disability policy and Advocacy initiative (DPAI) were accredited by INEC as domestic
observers during the polls.
In places like Lagos, generally, electorates comported themselves though in a particular
polling unit, a political party distributed alcohol causing commotion. There was also
incidence of ballot boxes snatching questioning the performance by security agents.22
This
questions the claims of INEC and CSOs engaging political parties on proper act as contained
in the Electoral Act.
It is worthy of note that in Lagos, security agents were generally civil.
Access of PWDs to information was not guaranteed as election materials were designed in
simple language for all category of voters but not Braille or tactile format for blind voters.
Use of sign language for the benefit of deaf was not used.23
Again, INEC failed in its commitment of situating polling units in accessible locations away
from obstacles and provisions of ramps. Polling units were used for the polls irrespective of
the condition of their location. In accordance with the Electoral Act, PWDs in need of
assistance during the voting exercise were allowed to bring along persons of their choice,
while some were assisted by other voters and INEC staff. In Lafia, Nassarawa and Minna,
20
Bayelsa, Edo, Kogi, Anambra, Ondo, Osun and Ekiti states
21
IRI report p.5
22
Lagos election observation findings
23
IRI report p.5
Picture a pwd casting his vote in a
transparent ballot box

37. pg. 37
Niger, ballots papers and boxes were placed on the ground to enable PWDs to thumb-print
and cast their votes. In Niger, there were no obstacles in the paths leading up to the polling
units and booths, but in Kogi, Kaduna, Nasarawa and Lagos some polling units had
obstacles hindering PWD access.24
INEC officials were generally punctual though some came late. However, in some parts of
Lagos, they allowed people vote without accreditation, i.e. on self recognition. Card reader
many times malfunctioned. Political parties in some places provided INEC staff with foods,
drinks and other logistics like chairs and tables which could possibly induce favourable
treatment. Many ballot papers were voided evidencing more civic education on proper
voting.25
3.3 Post Election
Most Nigerians remained in their polling units till election results were announced. The
palpable tension and uncertainty that the election occasioned right up to the collation centre
was reduced if not eliminated when the sitting president called, congratulated and conceded
defeat to the candidate of the opposition party. This almost dramatic novelty and gracious
gesture has changed the political geography of Nigeria in more ways than has been so far
computed. As several observers have noted, Nigerian democracy has stabilized further having
passed the test considered crucial by democratic theorists.26
3.4 Summary
Nigerians have spoken through their votes and the winners have all taken this moralistic,
patriotic, and high sounding oath of office -
„I, ............ do solemnly swear/affirm that I will be faithful and
bear true allegiance to the Federal Republic of Nigeria; …I
will discharge my duties to the best of my ability, faithfully
and in accordance with the Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria and the law, and always in the interest of
the sovereignty, integrity, solidarity, well-being and prosperity
of the Federal Republic of Nigeria; that I will strive to
preserve the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles
of State Policy contained in the Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria; that I will not allow my personal interest
to influence my official conduct or my official decisions; that
I will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria; that I will
abide by the Code of Conduct contained in the Fifth Schedule
to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria; that in
all circumstances, I will do right to all manner of people,
according to law, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will;
…; and that I will devote myself to the service and well-being
24
IRI report p.5,6
25
Lagos election observation findings
26
Buhari opportunity to change Nigeria’s narrative Punch April 3 2015 Ayo Olukotun

38. pg. 38
of the people of Nigeria. So help me God. (Underlining for
emphasis)
It is hoped that they will stick to the above oath by bearing true allegiance to Nigeria through
inclusive governance as well as sustaining the project ‗Nigeria‘ by unifying Nigerians. The
youths, women and PWDs could not be said to have enjoyed perfect Inclusiveness in the
2015 elections but for the PWDs it was a giant step in the right direction. Political ethics was
not at its best calling for improvement in 2019. However, our democracy is growing and it is
indeed a learning process.

39. pg. 39
CHAPTER 4
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF OBSERVATIONS FROM THE 2015
GENERAL ELECTIONS
4.0 Introduction
This chapter is structured into 3 main sections. In the first section, the methods adopted in the
gathering and analyses of data as well as some issues with respect to the data gathering
instrument are discussed. In the second section, state-by-state analysis of data is presented
while the third section presents analysis of data based on zonal grouping of states in line with
the six geopolitical zones in Nigeria.
4.1 Methodology
4.1.1 Design:
The conduct of election observation is generally structured in line with the processes of
conducting survey studies. This is because data is collected by enumerators (Election
Observers) on the field from targeted human and institutional actors within a specific
geographical location before, during and after elections
Often times, election observation adopts one, two or more survey methods of data gathering
and analysis including population sampling, behaviour observation, administration of
questionnaire, the use of various tools of data analysis, etc.
The general objective of election observation just as in survey researches is to investigate,
identify, and analyze certain behavioural trends of a selected sample population with a view
to determining the level of its prevalence within a given population as well as the effects of
such behavioural trends on the larger population and the polity.
The observation of the 2015 general elections was therefore conducted as a survey study of
the general elections with a view to determining its level of inclusivity and accessibility to
marginalized electorates comprising of voters with disabilities, pregnant women and the
elderly voters.
4.1.2 Population:
The observation of the 2015 general elections focused on both human and institutional
population. The human population is constituted by all eligible and registered voters in
Nigeria while institutional population is constituted by the election management bodies,
political parties, security agencies, media organizations, federal and state governments
(comprising of the executive, legislature and the judiciary), and development agencies.
According to World Bank Estimates, Nigeria currently has a population of about 170 million
people.27
However, the records of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)
27
Source: www.worldpopulationreview.com/countries/nigeria-population/

40. pg. 40
puts the voting population at over 80 million people out of which over 50 million voters were
registered for the 2015 general elections.28
Again, using World Bank and WHO Disability Population Ratio of 10 to 15%,29
Nigeria has
about 25 million persons with disabilities and about 10 million of them are of voting age.
Currently, there is no official record of voters with disabilities.
INEC operates a national headquarters as well as offices in the 36 states, FCT Abuja and the
774 local government areas in Nigeria. Political parties and security agencies also replicate
similar organizational structure across the country, while CSOs, media organizations and
development agencies operate in specific locations considered to be of interest to them.
In 2015, INEC registered a total of 25 political parties which featured candidates in the
presidential, national assembly, gubernatorial and state assembly elections.
4.1.3 Sample Size and Sampling Method:
DPAI, LACSOP and its CSO partners observed the 2015 general elections in 10 states. These
states constitute the sample size for the purpose of this report.
The determination and selection of states, local government areas, electoral wards and polling
units within which the observation was conducted was determined by the following factors:
 Observation was conducted in states where the DFID‘s SAVI programme currently
operates and in states which have participated in SAVI replication and knowledge
sharing activities.
 The observation took place in local government areas, wards and polling units where
SAVI CSO partners are based.
 SAVI CSO partners also observed the elections in local government areas, wards and
polling units where their staff is either resident and/or registered to vote.
For the purpose of easy comprehension, it will be important to present a description of the
geographical area covered during the observation exercise and within which data was
collected.
28
Source: www.inecnigeria.org/
29
WHO World Bank report on disability, (2011); www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/en/index.html

41. pg. 41
Table 4.1 States and Geopolitical Zones.
GEO-POLITICAL ZONES STATES
SOUTHWEST LAGOS
OSUN
SOUTHEAST ANAMBRA
ENUGU
NORTHCENTRAL NIGER
NORTHWEST JIGAWA
KADUNA
KANO
ZAMFARA
NORTHEAST YOBE
1. The above table shows that a total of 10 states were covered during the observation. 2
states were selected from the southwest, 2 states from the southeast, 1 state from the
north central, 4 states from the northwest and only 1 state from the northeast.
2. In all, the northwest had most; 4 of the states representing 40% of the total states
covered.
Table 4.2 Details of Local Government Areas and Polling Units Covered in each
State and Geopolitical Zones
GEOPOLI
TICAL
ZONES
STAT
ES
LGAs & LCDAs
COVERED
NO.
OF
LGAs
&
LCDA
s
COVE
RED
POLLING UNITS
COVERED
NO.
OF
POLLI
NG
UNIT
S
COVE
RED
SOUTHW
EST
LAGO
S
- IKEJA
- SURULERE
- AGEGE
- MUSHIN
- ALAUSA
- OREGUN
- OJO
- ALIMOS
HO
- MANGORO
9 - OLUSOS
UN
OREGUN
017
- PU 001
- PU 015
- PU 012
- PU 023
- PU 022
- PU 004B
- PU 005
- PU 004A
- PU 075
- PU 072
- PU 014
37

42. pg. 42
- PU 30C
- PU
032
- PU
013
- PU
015
- PU
012
- PU
016
- PU
107
- PU
108
- PU
032
-
PU066
- PU
061
- PU
002
WAR
D 1
- PU
002
WAR
D 2
- PU
032
- PU
013
- PU
015
- PU
012
- PU
016
- PU
107
- PU
108
- PU
032
- PU
066
- PU
061
- PU

43. pg. 43
002
WAR
D 1
- PU
002
WAR
D 2
-
OSUN - EDE
NORTH
- OLORUN
DA
- IFEDAYO
- BOKIPE
- OBOKUN
- OSOGBO
- BOLUWA
DURO
- EGBEDO
RE
- ATAKUM
OSA
WEST
- IFE EAST
- EDE
SOUTH
- IREPODU
N
- ODO-
OYIN
- OROLU
- ILA
ORANGU
N
- ODO-
OFIN
16 - WARD 8
UNIT 04
- WARD
02/003
- OSU
- WARD
02/007
- WARD
03/ PU
004
5
SOUTHEA
ST
ANAM
BRA
-- 0 -- 0
ENUG
U
-- 0 - PU002
- PU 003
- PU 004
- PU 005
- PU 007
- PU 008
- PU 001
- PU 011
- PU002
- PU 003
16

44. pg. 44
- PU 004
- PU 005
- PU 007
- PU 008
- PU 001
- PU 011
NORTHCE
NTRAL
NIGER -- 0 -- 0
NORTHW
EST
JIGA
WA
- KANGA
MA
- HADEJIA
- HADEJIA
- KIYAMA
- KIRIKA
SAMMA
- DUTSA
- RINGIM
- RINGIM
- BATRI
KANDI
- JAHUN
- JAHUN
- ANYO
- MIGA
- GURU
TOWN
- HADEJIA
- KHAWA
- UNGUW
AR
BAREBA
RI
- WARD
004
- WARD
005
- WARD
01
- WARD
03
- WARD
003
- WARD
004
- WARD
009
- WARD
40 - ALBAS
HI PU
001
- RAMF
A PU
004
- RAMF
A PU
006
- SHAM
ARING
WARD
PU 002
- MANT
AFARI
PU
001/2
- KACH
A
WARD
PU 006
- WARD
006 PU
007
- WARD
006 PU
005
- BADU
RA PU
003
- WARD
PU 006
- PU 008
- ANYO
FADA
A/B PU
- WARD
09 PU
008
- PU 002
80

45. pg. 45
007
- WARD
010
- WARD
011
- WARD
08
- WARD
01
- WARD
09
- WARD
002
- WARD
006
- WARD
03
- WARD
007
- WARD
06
- WARD
005
- WARD
011
- WARD
008
- WARD
008
- WARD
001
- HADEJ
IA
MAKE
RS 001
- BAKIN
KASU
WA
001/A&
B
- BIRNI
WA
001/2
- PU 01
- PU 003
- PU 006
- PU 010
- PU 04
- PU 003
- PU 002
- PU 009
- PU 006
- PU 08
- PU 012
- PU 01
- PU 05
- PU 8
- PU 007
- PU 008
- PU 6
- PU 010
- PU 006
- PU 04
- PU 003
- PU 002
- PU 002
- ALBAS
HI PU
001
- RAMF
A PU
004
- RAMF
A PU
006
- SHAM
ARING
WARD
PU 002

46. pg. 46
- MANT
AFARI
PU
001/2
- KACH
A
WARD
PU 006
- WARD
006 PU
007
- WARD
006 PU
005
- BADU
RA PU
003
- WARD
PU 006
- PU 008
- ANYO
FADA
A/B PU
- WARD
09 PU
008
- PU 002
- HADEJ
IA
MAKE
RS 001
- BAKIN
KASU
WA
001/A&
B
- BIRNI
WA
001/2
- PU 01
- PU 003
- PU 006
- PU 010
- PU 04
- PU 003
- PU 002
- PU 009
- PU 006
- PU 08

47. pg. 47
- PU 012
- PU 01
- PU 05
- PU 8
- PU 007
- PU 008
- PU 6
- PU 010
- PU 006
- PU 04
- PU 003
- PU 002
- PU 002
-
-
-
-
-
KADU
NA
- MATERA
- KAKURI
- ROMI
- HAYIN
DAN
MANI
- MANDO
ROAD
- MATERA
- KAKURI
- ROMI
- HAYIN
DAN
MANI
- MANDO
ROAD
10 - BABAND
ODO
- PU OO6
- PU OO6
- PU 011
- BABAND
ODO
- PU OO6
- PU OO6
- PU 011
8
KANO -- 0 - VAP
- VAP
- VAP
- VAP
- VAP
- BTG
- BTG
- BTG
- BTG
- BTG
- G&SI
- G&SI
- G&Si
20

48. pg. 48
- G&SI
- PPMCN
- PPMCN
- PPMCH
- WRWSI
- WRWSI
- WRWSI
ZAMF
ARA
-- 0 -- 0
NORTHEA
ST
YOBE -- 0 -- 0
TOTAL: 5 10 75 166
1. A total of 75 Local Government areas were covered while a total of 166 polling units were
covered in 10 states across 5 geopolitical zones.
2. Jigawa state had a total of 40 LGAs representing 53.3%; Osun State had 16 LGAs
representing 21.3%; Kaduna state had 10 LGAs representing 13.3%; while Lagos state had
the lowest of 9 LGAs representing 12%.
3. Again, JigawaState had 80 polling units representing 48.2%; Lagos sate had 37 polling
units representing 22.3%; Kano state had 20 polling units representing 12.05%; Enugu state
had 16 polling units representing 9.6%; Kaduna state had 8 polling units representing 4.8%;
while Osun had the lowest number of 5 polling units representing 3.01%.
-
-
- - 80
- - -
- TOTAL - 75 - 166

49. pg. 49
4.1.4 Methods of Observation, Data Collection and Analysis:
DPAI and LACSOP designed and deployed an Inclusive Election Monitoring Checklist as the
key instrument and guide for their election observers. Data was also collected based on
guided personal observation of each accredited Election Observer in line with INEC‘s
Guideline and regulations.
The Monitoring Checklist contained items which each observer is to mark as either
―available‖ (YES) or ―not available‖ (NO) respectively. These items have been identified as
key requirements for the inclusion and access for persons with disabilities in line with
international best practice and standards; but in full recognition of the social, economic,
political, environmental, technological and infrastructural peculiarities of the Nigerian
electoral process.
Other form of data used in this report was sourced through desk review of relevant literature
including official records/publications of INEC and other stakeholders.
4.1.5 Limitations:
The Monitoring Checklist used for the observation was originally designed to be ―disability‖
focused. The Checklist was designed to monitor the compliance of the conduct of election
with attitudinal, procedural, infrastructural and institutional ethics and standards of a
disability-inclusive election. It was not designed to capture electoral issues affecting women
(especially pregnant women) and the elderly. However, Observers reached a consensus to
take cognizance of other vulnerable groups including pregnant women and the elderly who
also required similar inclusivity and accessibility electoral needs.
Similarly, the Monitoring Checklist did not provide for the capturing of the numeric value as
well as the disaggregation of gender and age of voters with disabilities, pregnant women and
the elderly who turn-out to vote. As such, these issues were not included in the data gathered
and analyzed.
The monitoring Checklist also did not provide for the proper capturing of bio-data of
observers and the description of state, local government, ward and polling unit to be covered
for the exercise. However, Observers were guided to capture these details in their reports.
DPAI and LACSOP relied basically on the voluntary efforts of its members and CSO
partners to conduct these exercise due to inadequate resources. Observers in other states
outside of Lagos could not be effectively engaged for orientation and training. Hence the
seeming distortions and inconsistency in the way observation was conducted and
report/feedbacks compiled by Observers for each state.
The lack of resources also affected the scope and spread of the observation exercise. For
instance, restriction of the exercise to SAVI states and local governments where CSO
partners operated meant that no conscious plan could be made to ensure that equal number of
states was selected in each geopolitical zone or equal number of local government areas
selected in each state, etc. As it will be noticed, no state in the south-south geopolitical zone
was included.

50. pg. 50
Finally, in spite of these limitations, the relevance, significance and validity of this
observation exercise cannot be completely ignored. These identified limitations will serve as
yard-stick for improvements in future efforts.
4.2 State-by-State Presentation and Analysis of Data
Table 4.3 Observation of the 2015 Presidential and National Assembly
Elections in Lagos State.
STATE
Valid LAGOS
ELECTION DAY
Valid PRESIDENTIAL
LGA
Valid
AGEGE
ALAUSA
IKEJA
MUSHIN
OJO
OREGUN
SURULERE
POLLING UNIT
Valid
OLUSOSUN
OREGUN 0
PU 001
PU 004A
PU 004B
PU 005
PU 012
PU 014

51. pg. 51
PU 015
PU 022
PU 023
PU 072
PU 075
PU 30C
ACCESSIBILITY TO PU
Percent
Valid YES 100.0
ARRIVAL OF INEC OFFICIALS
Percent
Valid EARLY 80.0
LATE
TOTAL
20.0
100.0
SECURITY AT PU
Percent
Valid YES 100.0
PWDS PRESENT
Percent
Valid NO 40.0
YES
TOTAL
60.0
100.0
ELDERLY PRESENT
Percent
Valid YES 100.0
PREGNANT WOMEN PRESENT
Percent
Valid NO 26.7
YES
TOTAL
73.3
100.0
ACCREDITATION TIME