2027: INEC Under Fire Over Alleged AI-Generated Faces, Duplicate Voter Records

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is facing mounting questions over the integrity of Nigeria’s voter register ahead of the 2027 general election following allegations of artificial intelligence (AI)-generated photographs and duplicate voter records.

LEADERSHIP reports that the allegations, raised by concerned Nigerians and political groups on social media, have triggered renewed demands for transparency, an independent audit of the register and explanations from the electoral commission over the accuracy of the data it intends to use for the elections.

Among the concerns are claims that some photographs appearing in the register may have been artificially generated, alongside reports of duplicate personal details and discrepancies involving voters’ identities.

The controversy follows INEC’s decision to publish the Preliminary Register of Voters online after calls from Nigerians and other stakeholders for broader access.

In a statement dated October 26, 2026, the commission said it had conducted the physical display of the preliminary register at registration areas nationwide from October 9 to 15, in accordance with Section 19 of the Electoral Act, 2026.

According to the statement, the exercise was intended to allow registered voters to inspect their particulars and submit claims and objections as provided by law.

INEC acknowledged the concerns raised over online access to the register, stating that it had “taken note of the concerns expressed by Nigerians and other stakeholders regarding the desirability of making the Register accessible through its online platform in addition to the physical display already conducted”.

The commission subsequently announced that the same preliminary register previously displayed at registration areas would be made available through its online platform, display.inecnigeria.org.

“Accordingly, and in furtherance of its commitment to transparency, accessibility and public confidence in the electoral process, the Commission has decided to make available on its online platform display.inecnigeria.org the same Preliminary Register of Voters earlier displayed at the Registration Areas,” the statement, signed by Mohammed Kudu Haruna, chairman of INEC’s Information and Voter Education Committee, said.

However, shortly after the register became available online, Nigerians began raising questions about the authenticity of some photographs and the accuracy of the records.

 AI-Generated Images Raise Questions

One of the most prominent concerns relates to photographs in the voter register that some Nigerians have alleged were generated using artificial intelligence.

The National Democratic Congress (NDC), in a post on X, called on INEC to explain the appearance of alleged AI-generated images in the register for polling units in Ward 11, Etsako West Local Government Area of Edo State.

The party questioned who had introduced the images into the register, who conducted the voter registration and whether the individuals associated with the records had collected their Permanent Voter Cards (PVCs).

Demanding an explanation from the electoral commission, the party asked: “Who infused AI generated images in the register?”

It also questioned who conducted the registration exercise and whether the individuals whose photographs appeared in the register had collected their PVCs.

“We want answers!!!!!” the party declared.

The NDC further alleged that the voter register had been inflated ahead of the 2027 elections, warning against any attempt to manipulate the electoral process.

“Our Country Voters register is inflated already before election. We will resist any attempt to rig 2027 election,” the party stated.

However, the allegations do not, on their own, establish that the images were generated using AI or that the affected records belong to fictitious voters. INEC’s explanation and a technical examination of the disputed images and underlying records would be necessary to establish what happened.

Pat Utomi Demands Accountability

The controversy has also drawn the attention of political economist and public affairs commentator, Pat Utomi, who warned that questions surrounding the register could undermine confidence in the electoral process.

Utomi said INEC could not afford to be careless with the credibility of Nigeria’s democracy, arguing that the presence of AI-generated images in a register intended to support elections would raise serious questions about verification, transparency and accountability.

“INEC cannot afford to be careless with the credibility of Nigeria’s electoral process. The presence of AI-generated images in a register meant to support our democracy raises serious questions about verification, transparency and accountability. Our democracy is at stake here!” he said.

His intervention adds to growing calls for the electoral commission to address the concerns and explain the processes used to capture, verify and maintain voters’ information.

The allegations have also raised questions about the safeguards in place to ensure that photographs and personal information submitted during voter registration accurately represent the individuals concerned.

Voter Alleges Duplicate Identity

Beyond the disputed photographs, an X user identified as Eleniyan has recounted an experience during voter registration that raises questions about the handling of personal information and the resolution of duplicate records.

The user alleged that after submitting personal details and undergoing fingerprint capture during registration around May or June 2026, the registration device displayed a duplicate record containing the same surname, first name, middle name, date of birth, state and National Identification Number (NIN).

According to the user, the photograph, gender and local government area associated with the duplicate record differed from those of the person registering.

The user said an official involved in the registration exercise had dismissed the match as a coincidence, explaining that two people could share identical names.

However, the registrant questioned how two separate individuals could have the same NIN, which is intended to uniquely identify an individual within Nigeria’s national identity system.

“Even if that was the case, my understanding is that my National Identification Number (NIN) is exclusive to me only, so how come we both had the same NIN,” the user wrote.

The user said the registration officials proceeded with the exercise, issued a printout containing a Voter Identification Number (VIN) and promised that the discrepancy would be rectified.

Despite repeatedly checking the voter verification portal to confirm whether the registration had been processed, the user alleged that the name never appeared.

The individual said a subsequent search of the preliminary voter register revealed that the record associated with the disputed identity remained on the register, while the person’s own name was missing.

“I’ve now checked the voter register, and I still cannot find my name on the voter register, meanwhile the duplicate identity which was using my government name, and issued NIN as well as all my other details which I was told would be rectified is on the voter register,” the user wrote.

The registrant appealed to the commission to investigate and correct the discrepancy.

“Please kindly rectify this immediately. How exactly was my details and exclusive identification number’s used to register a woman I have no idea who she is,” the user asked.

Explaining how the disputed record was located, the user said the details of the local government area, ward and polling unit had been memorised during the registration exercise.

“The reason I’m able to check for her on the voter register, is because I still remember the LGA, Ward and Polling unit I saw on INEC registration Tablet/Device when they showed me the duplicate, eventhough they didn’t allow me snap the screen,” the user said.

The account has not been independently verified. It also remains unclear whether the alleged discrepancy arose from a registration error, a database reconciliation problem, an identity-related issue or another cause.

Nevertheless, the account has added another dimension to the debate over the reliability of the register and the procedures available to voters who identify discrepancies in their records.

 NEIS Calls For Comprehensive Audit

The Nigeria Election Intelligence System (NEIS) has also called for a comprehensive review of the voter register, arguing that the data requires proper auditing, reconciliation and cleaning.

The group questioned whether INEC could realistically address potential irregularities within the available timeframe without diverting attention from other preparations for the elections.

“One issue is clear. The INEC voters’ register needs proper auditing, reconciliation, and cleaning up,” NEIS said.

The group also questioned the commission’s preparedness, asking: “One wonders what INEC has been doing all this while!”

Expressing concern about the time available to address any irregularities, NEIS asked: “Can this realistically be achieved with just three months to the elections without distracting from the elections themselves?”

Recalling the difficulties associated with the 2023 general election, the group said: “2023 that INEC seemed better prepared was a nightmare, how much more now. WE WILL STREAM 2027 GENERAL ELECTIONS LIKE NETFLIX.”

NEIS also outlined its objective of providing independently verifiable election data in real time.

“NEIS Goal is to display accurate data Real Time sourced directly from Polling Units side by side with IREV Uploads and the Presiding Officer Name,” it said.

The group added: “Genuine claims of collation level or IREV uploads Rigging can only be achieved by providing REAL ALTERNATE FIGURES.”

Its position reflects a broader demand among election stakeholders for electoral information that can be independently scrutinised rather than relying exclusively on figures released by the electoral commission.

However, auditing the voter register and independently verifying election results are distinct exercises, even though both are important to electoral transparency.

Nigerians Question Timing Of Online Publication

Beyond the concerns about the register’s contents, some Nigerians have questioned the timing of its online publication.

Mazu Kingsley, a concerned Nigerian, accused INEC of making the register available at a time he believes could leave insufficient opportunity for meaningful corrections before the elections.

“INEC knows exactly what they are doing. They released the voter register at a time it would be too late for anything to be done. And what people are discovering now is the key reason they refused to make the register open all the while,” Kingsley said.

He added: “We are fighting against principalities, it won’t be easy, but there is always a way.”

The allegation that INEC deliberately delayed publication to conceal irregularities has not been independently substantiated.

Anayo Collins, another commentator on X, also questioned the photographs appearing in the register, arguing that some displayed characteristics commonly associated with AI-generated images.

“When INEC first announced it would start using AI, most people brushed it off as nonsense. Take a hard look at these images though — the signs of AI generation are hard to miss,” Collins said.

He further accused the commission of taking sides in the controversy, stating: “We should get ready for serious pushback this time. @inecnigeria is the one forcing the issue. They’ve already picked their side, and it’s not with ordinary citizens.”

Collins also argued that the commission was unlikely to respond adequately without public pressure.

His claims about the origin of the images and INEC’s intentions have not been independently verified.

The comments reflect growing public pressure on INEC to clarify the origin of the images, explain its verification procedures and demonstrate how concerns about potentially inaccurate records are investigated.

INEC Reiterates Commitment To Transparency

In its October 26 statement, INEC said the online publication of the preliminary register was intended to complement the physical display already conducted and improve public access.

The commission stated that it was processing claims and objections arising from the exercise in preparation for the certification and publication of the final register.

“The Commission continues to process claims and objections arising from the exercise in accordance with the Electoral Act, 2026, preparatory to the certification and publication of the Final Register of Voters on 15th December 2026,” the statement read.

INEC also reiterated its commitment to transparency and accountability.

“The Commission appreciates the continued interest and constructive engagement of Nigerians and stakeholders and reiterates its commitment to transparency, accountability and the faithful implementation of the Electoral Act, 2026 in delivering credible elections,” it added.

However, the statement did not specifically address the allegations concerning AI-generated photographs or the reported case of a duplicate record allegedly involving the same NIN.

Efforts to obtain INEC’s response to these specific allegations were unsuccessful, as the commission did not respond to text messages or calls seeking clarification on the matter.

Consequently, the circumstances surrounding the disputed photographs and the alleged duplicate identity remain unclear.

2027: What Is At Stake?

Questions about duplicate records, missing names or photographs that may not correspond to genuine voters can undermine public confidence, particularly when they emerge in the run-up to a major election.

Speaking with LEADERSHIP, political analyst Samuel Ede said concerns about the register should be investigated without automatically assuming that every discrepancy amounts to electoral manipulation.

“Questions about duplicate records, missing names or photographs that may not correspond to genuine voters can undermine public confidence, particularly when they emerge in the run-up to a major election,” Ede said.

“At the same time, the discovery of a duplicate record does not automatically establish deliberate electoral manipulation. Similar records may arise from administrative errors, technical problems or failures to reconcile databases, while allegations of AI-generated images require technical verification,” he added.

According to him, the appropriate response requires more than dismissing concerns or relying solely on claims circulating on social media.

“The appropriate response, therefore, goes beyond dismissing concerns or relying on social media claims. It requires transparent investigation, verification of disputed records, correction of confirmed errors and clear communication about the findings,” Ede said.