Two aspirants for the election of UI Senate Selection Board for the Appointment of Vice-Chancellor, have petitioned the Council on alleged irregularities in the just concluded election held on Monday, September 21st. Professor Ademola Dasylva of the Department of English and Professor Adesoji A Fasanmade of the Department of Physiology wrote the petition on the 22nd and 24th of September respectively.
The election, which was conducted via e-voting, was to select two representatives from the Senate that will join the Chairman of the Governing Council, Mr Nde Joshua Mutka Waklek, and other representatives that have been elected by the Congregation of staff to screen and appoint the next Vice-Chancellor out of the 16 aspirants.
In the petition, written by Professor Ademola, he protested against the process and outcome of the election; that it was technically compromised, fraught with procedural improprieties, as well as lacking in transparency.
He claimed the entirety of the election, was a far cry from a credible exercise, but a parody and travesty of an election process. He strongly asserted that the election was based on certain technicalities and flagrant contraventions of electoral processes, which he went further to explain.
It is obvious that the motive behind the non-display of the whole voting process for public
viewing was fraudulent and instrumental in the manipulation of the outcome of the election
More so, in the continuation of the election, there was a moment of freeze of the link for about 3 minutes. By the time the link was refreshed, the total vote had jumped from about 100 to 300 plus, defying the known pattern of vote counts. Also curiously, in the initial result declared after the election, Prof. M. K. Akinsola was listed to have polled 50 votes. Moments after, the figure was brought down to 20, making the election to appear as if it was a gaming show of numbers and an unequitable distribution of votes to preferred candidates.
Professor Adesoji Fasanmade, who wrote the second petition also laments about the result of the election. He started that the list (and details) of eligible members of Senate who had been accredited to vote in the election was not displayed (hard copy or electronically) before the election to enable confirmation of details and validation of those eligible to participate in the election.
The distribution of the votes in the final result released does not follow the binomial distribution expected of ‘free and fair’ elections. Indeed, it is unprecedented that the two candidates earlier identified as being ‘candidates’ for a particular applicant would receive 60% of all votes cast, leaving the remaining seven candidates sharing the remaining 40% of votes.
There are confirmed reports of ‘conference voting’ in some offices on Campus. This violates the most important principle of ‘e-voting’ which is the enablement of individual voting from individual personal computers. The question begging for an answer is if the voters who undertook conference voting normally go to the said offices to read their emails on a daily basis.
Both petitions call for annulment of the just concluded election.