INEC Blames Registration Officers for AI-Generated Images and Irregularities in Nigeria's 2027 Voter Register
Report Date: Saturday, 31 October 2026
Event: INEC disclosure concerning suspected AI-generated photographs and irregularities in the preliminary Register of Voters for the 2027 General Election.
Theme: Electoral Integrity, Voter Registration and Transparency.
Event Date: Friday, 30 October 2026.
Event Time: Exact broadcast time not independently confirmed; the reports were published on Friday, 30 October 2026.
Venue: Arise Television interview; physical studio location not disclosed.
Location: Broadcast interview; specific location not confirmed.
Institution: Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
Official Spokesperson: Dr Lawrence Bayode, Director of Information and Communication Technology, INEC.
Interview Platform: Arise Television.
INEC links suspicious voter-register entries to registration officers
Nigeria's Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has attributed the appearance of suspected artificial intelligence-generated photographs and other questionable records in its preliminary Register of Voters to irregular actions allegedly carried out by some registration officers with authorised access to the commission's registration system.
The disclosure, made on Friday, 30 October 2026, by INEC's Director of Information and Communication Technology, Dr Lawrence Bayode, during an interview on Arise Television, has renewed public attention on the integrity of the electoral database ahead of the country's 2027 general elections.
Bayode explained that preliminary findings showed that some registration officers across different states had used their official access credentials to introduce questionable information into the voter registration database.
He clarified that the problem did not involve every registration officer, stressing that only some personnel were implicated in the irregularities identified during the commission's examination.
The disclosure followed public concerns about unusual photographs, duplicate entries and other questionable information identified in the preliminary register recently made available online.
Among the records that attracted attention were entries associated with a polling unit in Etsako West Local Government Area of Edo State, where photographs appeared to have been generated using artificial intelligence.
The controversy raised questions about how such images could enter an official electoral database and whether the verification procedures used during voter registration were sufficiently effective in preventing questionable records from being included.
INEC's latest explanation points to possible failures involving the use of authorised registration accounts and compliance with established registration procedures.
However, the commission has not announced a comprehensive final investigation report identifying all the officers involved, the number of affected records or the reasons behind the alleged actions.
The development does not establish that the suspected entries have influenced any election result. It does, however, place the accuracy, security and credibility of the voter registration process under renewed scrutiny.
Sources: TheCable, 30 October 2026; The Guardian, 30 October 2026.
What INEC's ICT director disclosed
During his television appearance, Bayode explained how registration officers obtained access to the system and how some questionable records were subsequently identified.
According to him, registration officers deployed to the field possessed individual login credentials that enabled them to enter information into the commission's voter registration platform.
INEC's findings, he said, indicated that some of these officers had introduced different forms of irregularities into the database.
Bayode distinguished between photographs suspected to have been generated using artificial intelligence and records containing photographs resulting from poor registration practices.
This distinction is important because not every questionable photograph necessarily represents an AI-generated image.
Some photographs may have entered the database because registration procedures were not properly followed, while others have raised more serious questions about the authenticity of the information submitted.
The ICT director also explained that the commission had examined the database through its Automated Biometric Identification System (ABIS).
He indicated that the system helped the commission identify questionable records and examine how certain irregularities entered the database.
Bayode acknowledged that the commission had established how some of the records were introduced but said he could not explain why the officers allegedly responsible had acted in that manner.
His disclosure raised important questions about the internal management of registration credentials, supervision of field officers and the effectiveness of the commission's quality-control mechanisms.
It also established an important point in understanding the controversy: INEC's account attributes the identified irregularities to the actions of personnel with access to its registration system, rather than presenting the incident as a confirmed external cyberattack.
The commission has not yet published a complete list of the affected records or a final account of the disciplinary and investigative measures taken against the individuals allegedly responsible.
Source: TheCable – INEC: Some registration officers behind AI photos and discrepancies in voter register.
How the controversy started
Public attention increased after INEC made its preliminary Register of Voters available on its online platform on Monday, 26 October 2026.
The publication followed concerns expressed by citizens and electoral stakeholders about the accessibility of the register.
Before the online release, INEC had conducted a physical display of the preliminary register at Registration Areas nationwide between 9 and 15 October 2026.
The exercise was intended to provide registered voters with opportunities to examine their personal information and raise objections or report errors through the prescribed procedures.
The online publication was intended to complement the physical exercise by allowing people to inspect the register more widely.
Following the release, screenshots circulating on social media drew attention to entries that appeared questionable.
Some of the photographs were suspected of being AI-generated, while other concerns involved duplicate records and names believed to belong to deceased individuals.
The entries associated with Etsako West Local Government Area in Edo State became one of the examples discussed publicly.
The appearance of unusual images in an official electoral database triggered questions about the methods used to verify the identities of individuals during registration.
There were also questions about whether some entries had passed through the commission's normal checks without adequate examination.
The controversy quickly became a matter of public concern because the voter register is one of the most fundamental records used in the conduct of democratic elections.
An accurate register helps determine who is eligible to participate, where registered voters are assigned to vote and how electoral authorities organise polling arrangements.
For this reason, irregularities within the database can affect more than administrative record-keeping.
They can undermine public confidence in the institution responsible for managing the electoral process if not investigated transparently.
The commission's preliminary response was therefore followed by another statement from its ICT director on Friday, 30 October, explaining the alleged involvement of registration officers.
Sources: Channels Television, 27 October 2026; The Guardian, 30 October 2026.
INEC insists that the published register is preliminary, not final
One of the most important clarifications made by INEC is that the disputed document is not the final certified Register of Voters.
In its statement dated Tuesday, 27 October 2026, the commission explained that the register uploaded to its website on 26 October was the same preliminary document physically displayed nationwide from 9 to 15 October.
INEC said questionable records had already been identified during the physical display exercise and flagged for further examination.
It also explained that the online version did not reflect every data-cleanup activity already taking place within the commission.
This distinction means that the appearance of a questionable record in the published preliminary register does not automatically mean that the information will remain in the final electoral database.
The commission said it had commenced reviewing the affected entries and taking corrective action in accordance with its established procedures.
It further stated that the process was intended to allow inaccuracies and irregularities to be identified and addressed before the final register was certified.
The preliminary register is therefore an important stage in the electoral process, but it is not the final determination of eligible registered voters.
INEC's position is that the verification and correction procedures must be completed before the document becomes the official final Register of Voters.
Nevertheless, the effectiveness of these procedures will depend on the thoroughness of the investigation, the quality of the corrections and the commission's ability to prevent similar problems from recurring.
Source: INEC statement reported by Channels Television, 27 October 2026.
What is the Automated Biometric Identification System?
The Automated Biometric Identification System, commonly abbreviated as ABIS, is an important technology used in identifying and comparing biometric records.
In electoral administration, biometric identification can help detect records that may belong to the same individual and identify possible duplication within a database.
Biometric information may include fingerprints and facial characteristics, depending on the technology and system configuration.
The purpose of such systems is to improve the accuracy of identification and help prevent multiple registrations.
During the recent controversy, Bayode said the commission had used ABIS in examining the registration database and identifying questionable entries.
His comments highlighted the role of technology in detecting inconsistencies that might otherwise remain hidden within a large national database.
However, biometric identification should not be confused with a complete investigation into the authenticity of every photograph or the conduct of every registration officer.
A biometric system can help identify matching or suspicious records, but administrative investigations are still necessary to establish how particular information entered the database and who was responsible.
Similarly, identifying a suspicious photograph does not automatically establish whether the person represented is a real registered voter.
Each affected record must be examined using appropriate verification procedures.
The latest disclosure therefore highlights the need for INEC to combine biometric technology with stronger internal supervision, secure access controls, documentary verification and transparent investigation procedures.
The technology can contribute to a more reliable register, but its effectiveness ultimately depends on the quality of the information entered into the system and the procedures used to validate it.
Why AI-generated photographs in a voter register raise concerns
Artificial intelligence has introduced new possibilities for creating and manipulating photographs.
Although AI-generated images have legitimate uses in design, research and creative production, their inclusion in official identity records without proper authorisation raises serious concerns.
An electoral photograph serves an identification purpose.
It is expected to correspond to the individual whose details are recorded in the voter registration database.
When a suspicious or manipulated image appears in such a record, electoral officials must establish whether the photograph belongs to a genuine registrant and whether the registration procedure was properly completed.
The problem becomes more significant when questionable photographs are accompanied by duplicated information, inconsistent personal details or other irregularities.
Electoral databases depend on the accuracy of individual records.
If the information cannot be reliably verified, it becomes more difficult for electoral authorities to maintain public confidence in the registration process.
However, it is equally important not to assume that every AI-generated or unusual photograph represents a fictitious voter or deliberate electoral fraud.
Some irregularities may result from administrative errors, poor-quality image capture or improper use of registration equipment.
Others may involve deliberate misconduct.
The appropriate response is to investigate each case and establish the facts rather than make general conclusions based solely on images circulating online.
INEC's ICT director has acknowledged that the questionable records involved different circumstances, including suspected AI-generated photographs and poor registration practices.
That distinction should guide how the issue is reported and understood.
Concerns extend beyond suspicious photographs
Although AI-generated photographs attracted significant public attention, the wider controversy involves additional questions about the accuracy of the voter database.
Reports by TheCable and The Guardian also documented concerns about duplicate entries and names believed to belong to deceased persons.
Other citizens reportedly raised concerns that their personal registration details were missing from the online register.
These complaints involve different types of possible errors and should not be treated as a single category of misconduct.
A duplicate record, for example, could result from an incomplete data-matching process, an administrative mistake or an attempt to register the same person more than once.
An entry associated with a deceased individual requires verification of the person's identity and relevant records.
A missing entry could arise from a technical problem, an incomplete update, an administrative error or another issue requiring investigation.
Each situation demands a different response.
For the commission, the challenge is to identify which records are inaccurate, determine why the errors occurred and ensure the final register reflects eligible voters.
For citizens, the development reinforces the importance of checking their registration details rather than assuming that all information has been accurately transferred into the published database.
The commission's responsibility is not limited to identifying questionable photographs.
It must ensure that the entire register is accurate, complete and consistent with the applicable electoral law.
[Sources: TheCable, 30 October 2026; The Guardian, 30 October 2026.]
The October physical display and online publication
The process leading to the current controversy began with the statutory display of the preliminary Register of Voters.
INEC said the physical display was conducted nationwide from 9 to 15 October 2026 in accordance with Section 19 of the Electoral Act, 2026.
The exercise provided registered voters with an opportunity to inspect their details and raise claims and objections.
The display is an important part of electoral administration because registration information can contain errors that need to be corrected before certification.
A voter may discover that a name has been incorrectly entered, that other personal information is inaccurate or that the polling-unit details require clarification.
The process also allows members of the public to draw attention to entries that appear suspicious or do not correspond to genuine eligible voters.
On 26 October, INEC made the preliminary document available online through its voter register display platform.
The decision followed calls for wider public access to the document.
The commission said the online publication was an additional transparency measure intended to complement the physical display rather than replace it.
The register can be accessed through:
https://display.inecnigeria.org
The publication gave citizens who might not have visited a physical registration centre an opportunity to examine the available information.
However, online access by itself does not resolve the issues identified in the database.
The information still requires examination, verification and appropriate corrections before the final register is published.
The commission has indicated that the publication represents the original preliminary register and does not include all ongoing data-cleanup activities.
This means that the current document should be understood as part of an ongoing verification process rather than a completed national electoral record.
[Sources: INEC statement of 26 October 2026; Channels Television, 26 October 2026.]
What Nigerian voters should do
The disclosure has renewed the importance of public participation in electoral verification.
Registered voters should take the opportunity to check their own information in the preliminary register.
The process is particularly relevant to citizens who recently registered, transferred their polling units or updated their registration details.
People should carefully check whether their names and other relevant details are correctly reflected.
Where an entry appears to be missing or inaccurate, affected voters should seek clarification from INEC through the appropriate official channels.
Citizens who identify suspicious records should also report them through recognised commission procedures rather than rely exclusively on social media posts.
A photograph shared online may appear questionable, but its authenticity and the status of the associated registration must be established through official verification.
It is also important for citizens not to publish sensitive personal information, including full voter identification details, publicly when raising complaints.
INEC's online publication was intended to increase accessibility, and public scrutiny can assist in identifying errors.
However, the formal process for resolving a complaint must still be handled through the commission's prescribed procedures.
Voters should confirm directly with INEC whether any correction or objection process remains open for their particular case, especially because the nationwide physical display exercise took place earlier in October.
Public participation does not replace the commission's responsibility to investigate.
It provides additional information that may help the electoral authority improve the quality of the database.
Electoral integrity and the importance of an accurate register
The voter register is one of the central foundations of an electoral system.
Before an election can be organised, electoral authorities must establish who is registered, where voters are assigned and how the voting process will be administered.
The database supports the planning of polling units, the distribution of election materials and the preparation of voter accreditation systems.
An inaccurate register can create administrative problems and weaken confidence in electoral institutions.
If eligible voters discover that their records are missing or incorrect, they may question whether the registration process adequately protects their right to participate.
Similarly, if questionable or duplicated records remain unresolved, other stakeholders may raise concerns about the quality of electoral safeguards.
These risks make the current controversy particularly significant as Nigeria approaches its 2027 general elections.
The issue should not be approached as a partisan dispute involving any particular political party.
The accuracy of the voter register is a national electoral responsibility that affects all political parties, candidates and eligible citizens.
Government supporters and opposition supporters share an interest in ensuring that the electoral database is accurate.
A credible register also benefits election observers, civil society organisations and institutions that assess the quality of democratic participation.
The commission must therefore demonstrate that every credible complaint receives appropriate attention and that established procedures are applied consistently.
Electoral integrity depends not only on the accuracy of the final result but also on the reliability of the processes that lead to voting.
The question of internal accountability
One of the most serious aspects of the latest disclosure is the allegation that some irregularities were introduced by registration personnel with authorised access to the database.
The issue raises questions about how access credentials are assigned, monitored and protected.
Registration officers require system access to perform their official duties.
However, access must be accompanied by controls capable of identifying improper use and establishing responsibility where rules are violated.
A strong system should record the activities performed under each account, maintain appropriate audit trails and restrict access according to the responsibilities of individual officers.
Supervisors should also conduct regular checks to ensure that registration procedures are followed.
Where irregularities are detected, investigators should be able to establish which account was used, what information was introduced and whether the officer acted outside the approved procedure.
The ability to identify an account associated with questionable activity is important, but it does not automatically establish every circumstance surrounding the conduct.
Investigations must distinguish between the person who used an account, the person who was assigned the account and the person who ultimately authorised or introduced an entry.
This distinction is important for fairness and accountability.
INEC has not publicly provided a comprehensive list of the implicated registration officers or announced the complete outcome of its internal disciplinary process in the reports reviewed.
It is therefore premature to identify individuals or make claims about their motives.
What the commission has acknowledged is that some registration officers allegedly introduced irregularities and that its examination uncovered the problem.
The next important step is to explain how the breaches occurred, what controls failed and what corrective action will prevent similar incidents.
Data protection and responsible access to voter information
The controversy also highlights the importance of protecting citizens' personal information.
Voter registration records contain identifying details that should be handled responsibly.
The collection and management of such information require suitable safeguards against unauthorised disclosure, manipulation and misuse.
As electoral authorities increasingly depend on digital databases, information security becomes an essential component of election administration.
The use of individual login credentials is one part of access management, but it should be supported by appropriate authentication, monitoring and audit procedures.
Where questionable entries are detected, investigators must also ensure that the examination process does not expose legitimate voters to unnecessary privacy risks.
Public transparency and data protection are not competing objectives.
The public should have meaningful opportunities to scrutinise electoral information while individual citizens' sensitive details are handled in accordance with applicable legal requirements.
INEC therefore faces the task of improving the accuracy of its register without compromising the privacy and security of registered voters.
The 2027 elections make the investigation more urgent
Nigeria's next general elections are scheduled for January and February 2027 under the commission's published electoral calendar.
The current INEC calendar lists the Presidential and National Assembly elections for 16 January 2027.
The Governorship and State Houses of Assembly elections are scheduled for 6 February 2027.
The accuracy of the voter database will be important to preparations for both stages of the electoral process.
The preliminary register controversy comes at a time when political parties, candidates, civil society organisations and electoral observers are paying increasing attention to preparations for the elections.
The presidential contest and other electoral races will require dependable voter information and properly organised accreditation procedures.
The commission must therefore complete its examination and corrections before publishing the final register.
INEC has identified 15 December 2026 as the date for certification and publication of the final Register of Voters.
That deadline makes the coming weeks important for the commission's verification programme.
It will need to establish which questionable entries should be corrected, which records should be removed where legally justified and which records require further examination.
The commission must also ensure that legitimate voters are not mistakenly excluded during the data-cleaning exercise.
An accurate register requires both the removal of invalid records and the protection of the records of eligible voters.
Source: INEC official election calendar.
Why the final register matters to political parties
Political parties have a direct interest in the accuracy of the national register because it determines the population of registered voters who can participate in elections.
The accuracy of the register also influences campaign planning, voter education and efforts to encourage eligible citizens to participate.
Where voters believe that their information has not been correctly recorded, political parties may raise questions about the commission's administrative procedures.
However, parties and political actors must distinguish between evidence-based complaints and unverified political claims.
An allegation about a suspicious photograph does not by itself establish the existence of widespread electoral manipulation.
Similarly, a preliminary register containing errors does not automatically mean that the eventual election will be compromised.
The appropriate response is to examine the evidence, establish the nature and extent of any irregularities and implement the necessary corrections.
Political parties can contribute by encouraging their members and supporters to verify their information and report genuine concerns through recognised procedures.
They can also appoint representatives to participate in relevant electoral consultations and monitoring activities in accordance with the law.
INEC, for its part, must apply its rules consistently regardless of the political affiliation of the individuals affected.
This is essential for maintaining public confidence in the commission's independence.
The commission must explain how irregular entries passed through its checks
Another important issue emerging from Bayode's disclosure is the question of how the questionable records passed through the registration process.
If registration personnel were able to introduce irregularities using their official login details, the commission needs to explain what supervisory checks were in place when those entries were submitted.
It must also establish whether the irregularities were detected during routine system checks or only after citizens began sharing concerns publicly.
These questions are important because a strong electoral database should not depend exclusively on public exposure to identify questionable information.
Internal review systems should be capable of detecting suspicious patterns before the information becomes part of a publicly displayed register.
For example, repeated photographs, unusual registration activity, incomplete information and inconsistent biometric records may warrant additional examination.
Automated checks can help identify anomalies, but they should operate alongside human supervision and proper documentation.
The investigation should establish whether existing procedures were ignored, whether technological controls were insufficient or whether additional safeguards are needed.
A clear explanation would help electoral stakeholders understand whether the problem resulted from individual misconduct, weaknesses in the registration process or a combination of both.
It would also provide a basis for improving future registration exercises.
The importance of public confidence in INEC
Public confidence is essential to the functioning of an electoral commission.
Citizens must have reasonable confidence that registration procedures are fair and that information used to determine participation is being handled properly.
When questionable records become visible, the commission's response can influence how the public assesses its preparedness.
A transparent explanation, supported by verified findings and corrective action, can help address legitimate concerns.
Failure to explain how errors occurred or how they will be corrected may create room for speculation.
INEC therefore has an institutional responsibility to communicate clearly with citizens, political parties and other electoral stakeholders.
Such communication should include the number of affected records once established, the locations involved, the nature of the irregularities and the measures taken to resolve them.
The commission should also clarify whether disciplinary investigations have commenced and what procedural safeguards will be strengthened.
This information would help the public distinguish between isolated administrative failures and broader weaknesses requiring structural reform.
It would also allow independent observers to assess whether the final register has addressed the problems identified in the preliminary version.
Public confidence cannot be demanded.
It must be supported by consistent procedures, credible investigations, transparency and demonstrable corrective action.
Technology is useful, but human oversight remains essential
The controversy offers an important lesson about the growing use of technology in democratic administration.
Artificial intelligence, biometric identification and digital databases can improve the efficiency of electoral processes.
They can also introduce new risks when access controls and verification systems are inadequate.
Technology does not automatically eliminate human errors or misconduct.
In fact, digital systems can increase the consequences of improper administrative practices if incorrect information is entered and distributed across multiple databases.
A dependable electoral system requires a combination of technology, trained personnel, strong oversight and clear accountability.
INEC's use of biometric identification technology demonstrates the importance of automated verification.
However, the allegations involving registration officers show why access to registration platforms must also be closely supervised.
The commission should ensure that officers receive adequate training and understand the legal and administrative consequences of introducing inaccurate information.
System administrators should also be able to monitor activities and identify unusual access patterns.
Where an account is implicated in irregularities, an investigation should determine whether the credentials were used by their assigned officer or another person.
Such safeguards would help protect the electoral database and strengthen the reliability of future registration exercises.
What happens before 15 December 2026?
INEC has identified 15 December 2026 as the deadline for certifying and publishing the final Register of Voters.
This gives the commission a defined period within which to complete its verification and data-cleanup activities.
The work will involve examining questionable entries, resolving eligible complaints and establishing which records satisfy the requirements for inclusion in the final document.
The commission must also ensure that errors are corrected without improperly removing legitimate voters.
Citizens who have concerns about their records should seek information directly from INEC about the appropriate procedure and any applicable deadlines.
Political parties and civil society organisations can also contribute by encouraging accurate reporting of suspected irregularities and monitoring the correction process.
The commission's investigation into registration officers will be another important part of the process.
It should establish the number and nature of the irregularities, identify those responsible where evidence supports such findings and communicate the corrective actions taken.
The final register will provide an important benchmark for assessing whether the commission has successfully addressed the concerns raised by the preliminary publication.
It will also form part of the broader preparations for the January and February 2027 elections.
The wider implications for Nigeria's democracy
The controversy comes at a significant moment for Nigeria's democratic institutions.
Electoral credibility depends on several connected processes, including voter registration, party nominations, campaigning, accreditation, voting, counting and the announcement of results.
A weakness at any stage can affect the public's confidence in the overall process.
The voter register is especially important because it establishes the foundation for electoral participation.
The concerns raised in October demonstrate why electoral institutions must maintain effective systems for verifying information before and after publication of preliminary records.
They also show the value of public scrutiny when citizens encounter information that appears inconsistent or questionable.
However, scrutiny should be responsible and evidence-based.
Unverified images and allegations can circulate rapidly online, making it important for both media organisations and political actors to distinguish confirmed findings from claims that remain under investigation.
The commission must provide verified information that allows the public to understand the nature of the problem.
It must also show that corrective measures are being applied fairly and consistently.
For Nigeria, the ultimate objective should be an electoral system in which every eligible voter can participate and every registration record is supported by reliable information.
What Nigerians should expect from INEC
The coming weeks will be important in determining how successfully the commission addresses the current concerns.
Nigerians will expect a credible explanation of how irregularities entered the database, the number of records affected and the measures being taken to correct them.
The public will also expect the commission to demonstrate that legitimate voters will not be unfairly excluded during the verification process.
A clear statement on disciplinary investigations would help establish whether the allegations involving registration personnel are being addressed through appropriate accountability procedures.
The commission should also explain any additional technical or administrative controls introduced to prevent improper entries in future registration exercises.
These measures would be particularly important as the 2027 elections approach.
A comprehensive response would demonstrate that the commission is treating the matter as an institutional responsibility rather than merely a social media controversy.
Conclusion: Accuracy must remain the foundation of credible elections
INEC's disclosure on 30 October 2026 has brought renewed attention to the accuracy and security of Nigeria's preliminary voter register.
The commission has attributed the introduction of some questionable records, including suspected AI-generated photographs, to alleged irregular actions by certain registration officers with authorised access to the database.
The disclosure has raised questions about supervision, access controls, biometric verification and the procedures used to maintain the integrity of electoral records.
At the same time, INEC has maintained that the published document remains preliminary and that verification and corrective work is continuing before final certification.
The coming weeks will therefore be critical.
The commission must establish the extent of the irregularities, investigate the actions of the personnel involved and ensure that errors are corrected without excluding eligible voters.
Citizens, political parties and civil society organisations also have an important role in supporting the verification process through responsible reporting and engagement with official procedures.
Nigeria's democratic institutions depend on public confidence, and that confidence is strengthened when electoral processes are transparent, accountable and supported by reliable information.
As the country prepares for the 2027 general elections, the quality of the final Register of Voters will remain an important measure of INEC's ability to protect the integrity of the electoral process.
For Simpson Global Media, the central issue is not simply the appearance of AI-generated photographs in a preliminary database. It is whether the commission can demonstrate that every eligible Nigerian is properly represented, that questionable entries are investigated and that the final electoral register meets the standards required for credible democratic participation.
The responsibility now rests with INEC to turn its disclosure into a transparent investigation, effective corrective measures and a reliable final register ahead of the 2027 elections.
KEY DATES TO WATCH
9–15 October 2026: Physical display of the preliminary Register of Voters.
26 October 2026: Preliminary register published online.
27 October 2026: INEC issues clarification on suspected AI-generated photographs.
30 October 2026: INEC's ICT director attributes some irregularities to registration officers.
15 December 2026: Scheduled certification and publication of the final Register of Voters.
16 January 2027: Presidential and National Assembly elections.
6 February 2027: Governorship and State Houses of Assembly elections.
Comments
Post a Comment