Nigerian Association of Psychology Students (NAPS) Challenges Calls to Revoke FATSSSA Social Director-Elect’s Mandate

 

By Joseph Etsevi 

The Nigerian Association of Psychology Students (NAPS), University of Ibadan, has challenged calls for the revocation of the Social Director-Elect’s Mandate, arguing that the Independent FATSSSA Electoral Committee (IFEC) had previously considered the allegations against the candidate and imposed a ₦20,000 fine.

In an official statement addressed to the Speaker of the FATSSSA House of Representatives through the Clerk, the Association outlined its position on the allegations of violating campaign regulations and breaching data privacy during the recently concluded FATSSSA elections.

The statement comes amid concerns raised by the NSASA House of Representatives and the Department of Political Science regarding the circumstances surrounding the candidate’s electoral conduct and subsequent calls for the withdrawal of her mandate.

Addressing the allegation of campaigning outside the approved period, NAPS stated that the matter had previously been brought before IFEC, which examined the circumstances surrounding the incident and reached a decision.

According to the Association, although the campaign message appeared to have been delivered outside the permitted period, the candidate maintained that it had been drafted and sent at approximately 11:50 p.m, before the campaign period ended. The delayed delivery was attributed to network-related issues, which allegedly caused the message to reach its recipients the following morning.

The Association further stated that evidence supporting the candidate’s explanation was presented to IFEC and considered before the committee reached its decision. It added that the candidate had paid the ₦20,000 fine imposed in connection with the incident.

While acknowledging the importance of strict compliance with electoral regulations, NAPS questioned the basis for imposing additional sanctions after the electoral commission had investigated the complaint and prescribed a penalty.

The Association consequently requested clarification on the specific electoral provisions or procedural grounds being relied upon to justify the proposed revocation. It maintained that any attempt to revisit a previously adjudicated matter should be supported by the applicable rules and a clear explanation of why the initial decision was considered insufficient.

On the allegation that the Social Director-Elect breached data privacy by obtaining and contacting the telephone numbers of financially compliant FATSSSAites during the election period, NAPS argued that the circumstances surrounding the acquisition and use of the information required further examination.

The Association maintained that its candidate, Miss Modesty, obtained the contact numbers from the general FATSSSA group, arguing that the source of the information should be considered before a conclusion of misconduct is reached.

It further contended that contacting individuals whose numbers a candidate did not previously possess does not, in itself, establish a breach of data privacy.

NAPS called on the appropriate authorities to assess the allegation against the relevant electoral regulations and applicable data protection rules, taking into consideration how the information was obtained and used.

The Association also introduced the case of Miss Sewa, an opposing candidate from the Department of Sociology, whom it alleged had similarly contacted individuals with whom she had no prior direct communication during the election period.

According to the statement, NAPS possesses screenshots of the messages and is prepared to present them to the appropriate authorities for examination.

The Association argued that if the acquisition and use of contact information constituted an electoral offence under the applicable regulations, the same standards should apply to every candidate whose conduct falls within the relevant provisions.

It therefore requested that the evidence concerning Ms. Sewa be examined alongside the allegations against its candidate, insisting that electoral accountability must not be selective.

However, the claims concerning the opposing candidate, as well as the circumstances surrounding the alleged privacy breach, remain assertions contained in the Association’s statement and require independent verification.

On the proposed revocation of the election result, NAPS described the measure as a significant decision that should not be pursued without a clear legal or procedural basis.

The Association argued that where an electoral committee has investigated a complaint and imposed a sanction, any subsequent demand for further punishment should be supported by specific provisions of the applicable electoral regulations. It also requested clarification on whether new facts, grounds for review, or provisions authorising further action had emerged since IFEC reached its initial decision.

NAPS maintained that it was not seeking to shield its candidate from legitimate scrutiny but to ensure that any further disciplinary action was procedurally sound, proportionate, and consistent with the rules governing the election.

The Association stressed that the integrity of the electoral process depended on respect for established procedures, fairness, and the consistent application of electoral regulations.

The statement concluded with a call for the relevant authorities to establish the facts, identify the specific rules allegedly violated, and ensure that any disciplinary action is supported by sufficient evidence.

Similarly, whether IFEC’s earlier decision can be reviewed or whether the proposed revocation is justified remains a matter requiring clarification from the relevant authorities.

As the controversy continues, attention is likely to focus on the provisions governing electoral sanctions, the circumstances surrounding the alleged campaign violation, and whether comparable allegations against other candidates have been subjected to the same scrutiny.