ANALYSI: INEC And The Media: Why Democracy Cannot Survive Without A Free, Vigilant And Responsible Press

Nigeria’s preparations for the 2027 general elections have brought into sharp focus an enduring truth about democratic governance: elections are not sustained by ballot papers, electronic devices, electoral regulations and the pronouncements of an electoral commission alone. They also depend on the quality of information available to citizens, the credibility of public institutions, the willingness of political actors to respect the rules and, above all, the freedom of the media to scrutinise the process, expose wrongdoing and inform voters without fear or favour.

This is the larger significance of the recent engagement between the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Professor Joash Amupitan, and members of the Guild of Corporate Online Publishers (GOCOP) at the guild’s 10th Annual Conference in Lagos. Held under the theme, “2027 Elections: Trust, Transparency and Shared Responsibilities,” the meeting offered an opportunity to examine not only the dangers of sensational journalism but also the indispensable contribution of the media to democracy, particularly at a time when digital technology has transformed the speed, reach and political consequences of news.

Represented by the Lagos Resident Electoral Commissioner, Professor Ayobami Salami, Amupitan warned that fake news, unverified allegations and sensationalised reporting could undermine public confidence in elections and aggravate voter apathy. He also urged online publishers to prioritise accuracy over the competitive pressure to break stories first, exercise restraint when reporting operational difficulties and verify allegations of electoral manipulation before publishing them.

These concerns are legitimate, especially in a politically polarised environment where a misleading headline, a fabricated result sheet or an unsubstantiated allegation of rigging can spread across social media platforms before the institution or individual concerned has an opportunity to respond. Yet, while the INEC chairman’s warning deserves serious consideration, the discussion must not end with the responsibility of publishers to avoid misinformation. It must also address the responsibility of the electoral commission to provide timely, transparent and verifiable information, and the broader obligation of government to protect press freedom and the public’s right to know.

The relationship between the media and electoral authorities must be one of constructive engagement without compromising editorial independence. Democracy needs responsible journalism, but it equally needs journalism that is sufficiently independent, courageous and inquisitive to question the official narrative when the facts demand it.

The Media Is Not A Decoration Of Democracy

One of the most persistent misconceptions about democracy is that the media merely reports political events after decisions have been taken by those in authority. In reality, the press is part of the institutional architecture through which citizens understand public affairs, evaluate competing political claims and determine whether those entrusted with power are fulfilling their obligations.

A democracy cannot be reduced to periodic elections. It must also provide the conditions under which citizens can make informed choices, challenge abuses of authority, participate in public debate and hold elected representatives accountable between elections. Without these conditions, voting risks becoming a ritual rather than a meaningful expression of popular sovereignty.

The media supplies much of the information that makes these democratic choices possible. It examines manifestoes, investigates public expenditure, questions government policies, scrutinises the conduct of political parties, exposes corruption and provides a platform for citizens whose grievances might otherwise remain unheard. During elections, its responsibilities become even more consequential because voters must assess candidates, understand electoral procedures and distinguish evidence-based claims from political propaganda.

The media is therefore not simply a messenger between INEC and the electorate. It is also an independent watchdog, a public educator and a forum for accountability. Its constitutional significance in Nigeria is reinforced by Section 22 of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that the press, radio, television and other agencies of the mass media shall at all times be free to uphold the fundamental objectives contained in the Constitution and hold government responsible and accountable to the people.

This constitutional provision makes it clear that the media’s obligation extends beyond repeating official statements. Its duty includes examining those statements, testing them against available evidence and bringing discrepancies to public attention.

Consequently, any engagement between INEC and media organisations ahead of the 2027 elections should be viewed as an opportunity to strengthen this relationship, not as a mechanism for narrowing the boundaries of legitimate scrutiny.

Why Amupitan’s Warning Deserves Attention

The INEC chairman is right to draw attention to the damage that careless reporting can inflict on electoral credibility. The digital revolution has dramatically reduced the time required to publish news, but it has not eliminated the professional obligation to verify it.

An allegation that ballot boxes have disappeared, that results have been altered or that electoral officials have colluded with a political party can acquire the appearance of established fact when repeated across multiple platforms. Yet repetition is not proof, and the number of people sharing a claim does not determine its truth.

The consequences can be serious. Voters may lose confidence in an election before voting begins, citizens may refuse to participate because they believe the outcome has already been predetermined, and political supporters may interpret unverified claims as justification for confrontation. Where ethnic, religious or regional divisions already influence political competition, fabricated information can intensify suspicion and hostility.

Artificial intelligence has made the problem more complex. Manipulated audio recordings, fabricated videos, synthetic photographs and impersonation of public officials can make falsehoods appear convincing even to people who ordinarily exercise reasonable judgment. During a tightly contested election, such material can circulate widely before independent verification catches up.

Amupitan’s emphasis on verification is therefore appropriate. Publishers should distinguish between allegations and established facts, identify the sources of consequential claims, authenticate electoral documents and give relevant parties a fair opportunity to respond. Headlines must reflect what the evidence establishes rather than what is most likely to attract clicks.

However, the distinction between sensationalism and investigative journalism must remain clear. A report does not become irresponsible simply because it exposes an uncomfortable truth, questions an electoral institution or attracts intense public attention. The determining considerations should be accuracy, fairness, evidence, public interest and professional conduct.

A free press cannot function effectively if fear of damaging public confidence becomes a reason to avoid reporting genuine electoral failures. Sometimes, confidence is damaged not by the report of misconduct but by the misconduct itself. Concealing such facts might temporarily protect an institution’s reputation, but it would ultimately undermine the credibility that the institution seeks to preserve.

The Other Side of The Trust Equation

Although the media must take responsibility for its publications, INEC must recognise that public confidence cannot be secured principally through appeals for responsible reporting. It must be earned through institutional conduct that citizens can independently examine.

Trust is not a public-relations product. It develops when an institution consistently demonstrates competence, impartiality, transparency and accountability. An electoral commission that publishes timely information, explains its procedures, responds to legitimate questions and investigates credible complaints creates a stronger foundation for public confidence than one that expects citizens to accept official assurances without sufficient evidence.

If publishers are expected to verify allegations with INEC, the commission must make verification practical. This requires accessible communication channels, prompt responses to media enquiries, regular briefings, clearly documented procedures and timely publication of authoritative information. When electoral authorities remain silent during a developing controversy, speculation often fills the information vacuum.

The commission must also understand that verification does not mean treating its own statements as the final word on every disputed matter. Journalists should be able to consult election observers, political parties, candidates, polling-unit officials, civil society organisations, affected voters and independent experts. Where accounts conflict, the responsible course is to report the disagreement accurately and continue investigating, rather than automatically accepting either the official position or the loudest accusation.

This is particularly important in reporting operational challenges on election day. A malfunctioning device at one polling unit does not, by itself, establish that an entire election has failed. Equally, the fact that a problem is geographically limited does not make it unworthy of reporting. The media’s task is to establish the scale of the problem, investigate its causes, assess its consequences and explain whether it reflects an isolated incident or a wider institutional weakness.

The same standard must apply to INEC. The commission should not dismiss legitimate criticism as misinformation merely because the criticism is inconvenient or because it originates from a political opponent.

The credibility of the 2027 elections will depend substantially on whether INEC can demonstrate that it welcomes scrutiny, corrects errors promptly and applies electoral rules consistently across political parties and candidates.

Why The Media Matters Even Under Non-Democratic Government

The importance of the press extends beyond democratic societies. Indeed, the media can become even more consequential where democratic institutions are weak, political opposition is restricted or citizens have limited opportunities to influence government decisions.

In authoritarian and military-led systems, state institutions may operate without meaningful electoral competition, and the authorities may exercise substantial control over public information. In such circumstances, independent journalists can provide some of the few channels through which abuses of power, corruption, human rights violations and failures of public administration reach the wider population.

History has repeatedly demonstrated that governments may attempt to suppress inconvenient information, but suppression does not eliminate the underlying problems. It merely deprives citizens of the opportunity to understand them and seek remedies. Investigative journalism, independent broadcasting and international reporting can help reveal what official propaganda seeks to conceal.

The media can also preserve public memory. By documenting abuses, recording testimony and maintaining evidence of events, journalists help prevent powerful individuals and institutions from exercising complete control over how history is remembered. Their work can support future investigations, public inquiries and efforts to secure justice when political circumstances change.

Even in non-democratic societies, therefore, the media performs an essential public function: it reduces the information imbalance between those who govern and those who are governed.

This does not mean that every media organisation operating under an authoritarian government is independent or that journalism automatically produces political freedom. State-controlled outlets can function as instruments of propaganda, while privately owned platforms may also be vulnerable to political pressure, commercial interests or intimidation. Nevertheless, the existence of independent channels of information remains important wherever power is concentrated and accountability is limited.

There is an important lesson here for Nigeria. A country does not strengthen democracy by discouraging uncomfortable questions. It strengthens democracy by creating institutions capable of answering them. If the press must be responsible, public authorities must also be answerable.

Online Publishers And The Challenge Of The Digital Age

Amupitan’s engagement with GOCOP is especially significant because online publishers have become major participants in Nigeria’s information ecosystem. Their platforms deliver news rapidly, reach audiences across geographical boundaries and make it possible for smaller media organisations to challenge narratives previously dominated by a limited number of established outlets.

This expansion has democratised access to information, but it has also intensified competition for audience attention. The pressure to publish first, attract clicks and generate advertising revenue can encourage exaggerated headlines, insufficiently verified reports and the circulation of material whose authenticity has not been established.

The solution is not to condemn digital journalism as inherently unreliable. The solution is to insist that professional standards must apply regardless of the platform through which news is delivered.

A publisher operating online has the same fundamental responsibility to verify consequential claims as a newspaper editor or a broadcast journalist. Speed should not become an excuse for negligence, and technological sophistication should not be mistaken for credibility.

GOCOP members and other online publishers should therefore strengthen editorial procedures for election coverage, including independent verification of documents, preservation of source material, clear attribution, transparent corrections and the separation of news reporting from opinion and political advocacy.

Where an allegation cannot be independently established, that uncertainty should be made clear to readers. Where a report is found to be wrong, the correction should be prominent enough to reach audiences exposed to the original claim. Quietly amending a story after it has circulated widely is rarely sufficient to repair the damage.

At the same time, the industry must avoid allowing the fight against fake news to become a justification for censorship. The authority to determine whether a claim is false should not be exercised arbitrarily by political actors or public institutions seeking to suppress criticism. Fact-checking must be evidence-based, transparent and open to independent scrutiny.

A Partnership That Must Protect Independence

Amupitan’s proposed three-point partnership with GOCOP—covering digital fact-verification, stronger editorial self-regulation against unverified election results and altered result sheets, and a national voter-education initiative—offers a potentially useful starting point.

Its success, however, will depend on the details of implementation and the willingness of both parties to respect their distinct responsibilities.

A digital fact-verification initiative could help publishers authenticate disputed electoral documents, check viral claims and obtain reliable explanations of electoral procedures. A self-regulatory framework could encourage consistent editorial standards and discourage the publication of fabricated results. A voter-education partnership could improve public understanding of voter registration, Permanent Voter Card collection, polling procedures, accreditation, result collation and lawful channels for reporting electoral violations.

Such cooperation could also help counter deliberate disinformation campaigns that exploit uncertainty and political divisions.

But the arrangement must preserve editorial independence. GOCOP should not become an extension of INEC’s public-information machinery, just as INEC should not regard critical reporting as evidence of hostility. Their relationship should be built on mutual respect, access to information and a shared commitment to enabling citizens to make informed decisions.

The commission should also recognise that journalists are not election administrators. Publishers cannot assume responsibility for the integrity of the voting process, the security of election materials or the accurate transmission of results. Those responsibilities belong to the institutions and officials legally charged with conducting elections.

The media can expose shortcomings, explain their significance and demand corrective action. It cannot substitute for an electoral commission that fails to perform its statutory duties.

Voter Apathy: A Problem Deeper Than Headlines

The warning that sensational reporting may worsen voter apathy deserves attention, but the causes of electoral disengagement must be examined more broadly.

When citizens repeatedly encounter disputed results, allegations of political interference, violence, vote-buying or inadequate consequences for electoral malpractice, some may conclude that participation offers little prospect of meaningful change. Others may be discouraged by insecurity, logistical difficulties, economic hardship or a perception that political leaders are insufficiently responsive to public needs.

Misinformation can intensify these frustrations, but it is not the only source of distrust. Genuine institutional failures can be equally damaging.

It would therefore be simplistic to suggest that improving headlines and fact-checking alone will restore participation in 2027. Voter confidence will depend on whether citizens believe their votes will count, whether electoral rules will be applied fairly and whether complaints will receive credible attention.

INEC must demonstrate preparedness, communicate clearly and ensure that avoidable administrative failures are addressed. Security agencies must protect voters and electoral personnel without political bias. Political parties must respect electoral rules, discourage violence and accept that democratic competition requires lawful conduct. Courts must resolve electoral disputes in accordance with the law and available evidence.

The media, for its part, must help citizens understand the choices before them, explain the consequences of public policies and provide accurate information about how to participate. It should report electoral misconduct without exaggeration and highlight credible evidence of improvements without becoming a promotional instrument for any institution.

This balanced approach offers a stronger foundation for public trust than either uncritical praise of the electoral process or indiscriminate condemnation of every institution involved.

The Road To 2027 Must Be Built On Accountability

The meeting between Amupitan and online publishers is a timely reminder that electoral credibility is a shared responsibility, but shared responsibility must never become shared avoidance of accountability.

The media must be truthful, fair and professional. INEC must be transparent, competent and impartial. Political parties must compete within the law, while government must protect the freedom of journalists to investigate matters of public interest.

These obligations reinforce rather than diminish one another. A responsible press strengthens public understanding; an accountable electoral commission makes credible reporting easier; and an informed electorate is better equipped to participate meaningfully in democratic life.

Ultimately, the greatest service the media can render Nigeria ahead of the 2027 elections is neither to manufacture confidence in INEC nor to destroy confidence through careless allegations. It is to report the facts, test claims, expose wrongdoing, explain uncertainties and insist that every institution entrusted with public responsibility answers legitimate questions.

The greatest service INEC can render the country is to ensure that its actions withstand that scrutiny.

Democracy does not require citizens to believe every official statement, nor does it require journalists to accept every allegation as fact. It requires an environment in which claims can be investigated, evidence can be examined, errors can be corrected and public institutions can be held accountable without intimidation.

That is why the media remains indispensable, not only to Nigeria’s democratic aspirations but also to societies where democratic freedoms are restricted. Wherever power exists, there must be a means of scrutinising it. Wherever citizens are expected to obey decisions, they must have access to information about how those decisions are made. And wherever elections are held, voters must be able to distinguish between fact, propaganda and speculation.

As Nigeria approaches 2027, the challenge is not simply to ensure that publishers report elections responsibly. It is to create an electoral environment in which responsible journalism can flourish, institutional transparency is the norm and citizens have sufficient reason to believe that their participation matters.

A democracy that fears scrutiny is already in danger. An electoral commission that welcomes scrutiny has an opportunity to earn public confidence. And a media that combines independence with professional responsibility can help ensure that the 2027 elections become not merely another contest for political power, but a meaningful test of Nigeria’s commitment to accountable government and the sovereignty of its people.