The truth about elections, held to a single standard.

Next up

Five categories, never conflated

The recorded numbers do not reflect the votes cast.

Unequal media access, repression, illegal financing, vote buying, misuse of state resources.

Cyberattacks, hack-and-leak, covert foreign financing, impersonation of media or institutions by a foreign state or proxy.

Troll farms, fake local-media networks, covert political ads, coordinated inauthentic amplification — foreign or domestic.

Patterns in the data worth examining — explicitly not proof of fraud.

A finding sits in exactly one category. Colors and icons carry the same meaning everywhere on the site.

From the case files

The clearest test of a trustworthy record is whether it can hold both statements at once.

Process violationsConfirmed
INEC's delayed and failed publication of many presidential polling-unit forms broke the central transparency expectation attached to IReV.
More detail
The EU mission found that operational failures and a lack of transparency severely damaged public confidence. Presidential result forms were not uploaded promptly even while other contests uploaded more successfully, and INEC did not communicate a timely, convincing explanation. The failure did not itself alter the paper forms, but it removed the promised real-time public check during the most sensitive phase.
Sources:1 2
Process violationsCorroborated
Late openings, violence, intimidation and uneven administration denied or burdened participation in parts of the country.
More detail
International and domestic observers documented substantial regional disparities, delayed deployment, attacks and cases where polling could not take place or voters were deterred. These are integrity failures even where the ballots eventually cast were counted correctly.
Sources:1 2 3

Result falsificationContested
The available parallel tabulation does not support a claim that the national candidate ordering was reversed.
More detail
Yiaga's representative national sample placed the official shares of APC, PDP, Labour and NNPP within their expected ranges. It specifically assessed that the manipulation it identified in Rivers and Imo did not affect the overall outcome. Because polling failures and intimidation excluded some voters, this verifies the aggregation of ballots cast more strongly than it verifies equal access to cast them.
Sources:1
Statistical anomaliesDebunked
Low turnout and regional differences do not, by themselves, demonstrate a fabricated national tally.
More detail
The national turnout was historically low and administration varied sharply by region. Yiaga's turnout estimate nevertheless included the official rate within its margin of error, while its candidate-share ranges also included the official national figures. The anomalies are evidence of participation and administration problems, not a standalone statistical proof of a different winner.
Sources:1 2