|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Full Text
With just 36 days to The Gambia’s presidential election, conflicting figures for The Gambia’s 2026 supplementary voter registration exercise provided by the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) in April have raised questions about the IEC’s data-processing procedures and the number of records ultimately retained.
The United Democratic Party (UDP) claimed a dataset provided to the party contained 183,163 records, while the IEC reportedly announced 212,095 supplementary voter registrations. The difference is 28,932.
But what do the figures represent, why might they differ, and what evidence is needed to establish whether the discrepancy has been adequately explained?
What are the figures in dispute?
According to the UDP, the party received a dataset containing 183,163 records, compared with the 212,095 supplementary registrations reportedly announced by the IEC during a stakeholder engagement at the SDK Conference Centre on June 4, 2026.
To determine its significance, it is necessary to establish whether the two figures refer to the same categories of records and the same stage of the registration process.
What does the IEC say?
According to The Standard report of Oct. 6, 2026, IEC Vice Chairman Cherno Mamadou Jallow explained that the 212,095 figure represented raw data collected from registration centres.
He also noted that these figures included replacement cards, reprints, and spoiled or damaged cards, along with records later verified.
The IEC also reportedly distinguished between 14,334 people identified as having registered more than once and 24,058 multiple-registration instances initially identified.
These distinctions matter because registration-related figures may measure different things. A person, a registration record, a duplicate entry and a card-replacement transaction are not necessarily equivalent units.
However, the reported explanation does not, by itself, provide a complete numerical reconciliation showing how the 212,095 figure relates to the 183,163 records the UDP received.
Why does data verification matter?
Electoral registration data may undergo checks to identify duplicate entries, invalid records and other anomalies. Card replacements, reprints and spoiled cards may also require separate treatment, depending on how the commission compiles and reports its statistics.
Consequently, an initial figure collected at registration centres may differ from a dataset produced at a later processing stage.
But this general possibility does not establish that it explains the entire difference in this particular case. That requires documentary evidence showing how the IEC classified, verified, adjusted and reconciled the records.
The figures concerning multiple registrations must also be interpreted carefully. The number of people identified as having registered more than once is not necessarily the same as the number of duplicate entries or transactions recorded. These categories should not be added together or treated as interchangeable without the IEC’s methodology.
What does the UDP want clarified?
The UDP has questioned the difference and sought clarification regarding the underlying registration data and the procedures used to process the records.
The party’s concerns raise legitimate questions about data transparency and stakeholders’ ability to understand how the published figures were produced. Nevertheless, a difference between two datasets does not, on its own, establish electoral malpractice, deliberate manipulation or the exclusion of eligible voters.
Similarly, an explanation that the figures represent different processing stages should be supported by records that allow independent reconciliation.
What evidence is still needed?
A conclusive explanation would require the IEC to provide, or make available for independent examination, the following:
The dataset or statistical breakdown underlying the announced figure of 212,095.
The dataset containing the 183,163 records reportedly provided to the UDP.
A breakdown of replacement cards, reprints, spoiled or damaged cards, duplicate entries, and other adjustments, where applicable.
The methodology used to distinguish individuals from registration records and multiple-registration instances.
A reconciliation showing how the initial figure was processed into the relevant verified total.
What can be concluded?
The difference of 28,932 between the two reported figures is mathematically correct. However, the available information presented in the reports does not establish that 28,932 eligible voters are missing from The Gambia’s electoral register.
While concerned parties and members of the public await the release of the raw data containing the list of supplementary voter registrations conducted months ago, the Independent Electoral Commission has announced the dates for the commencement of nominations ahead of the Dec. 5, 2026 Presidential elections.
IEC Nomination Schedule. Source: IEC Facebook Page
However, amid pressure from the opposition party, UDP, the IEC announced through its chairman that it will release the Master Register and the supplementary Register to all political parties after court proceedings conclude.
The IEC’s reported explanation offers a possible reason for the difference, but the information does not fully reconcile the two figures.
Until the underlying datasets and processing records are examined, the discrepancy should be treated as an outstanding question about electoral data transparency, not as proof of electoral malpractice or proof that the IEC’s figures are correct.
The central question remains: Can the IEC provide a transparent, verifiable breakdown showing how the two figures relate?