Fix the expected units
The INEC polling-unit register supplies stable territory or state, local, ward and unit codes. Ifako-Ijaye contains 761 inventory units in this snapshot, which prevents source rows from silently changing the denominator.
Local evidence record · Declaration unavailable
Ifako-Ijaye 2023 presidential election evidence
Mundx's selected polling-unit observations place APC first in Ifako-Ijaye's four-party aggregation with 29,788 votes, ahead of LP by 5,259. This is not an official LGA declaration. The current source register contains no separately sourced Ifako-Ijaye collation record, so the declared-result field remains unavailable.
Evidence status: complete inventory representation for the four selected parties does not make these figures an EC8C, EC8D or other declared collation result.
Ifako-Ijaye PU layer
Four-party polling-unit aggregation
The selected records total 57,970 votes across APC, LP, PDP and NNPP. APC accounts for 51.4% of that four-party sum; LP accounts for 42.3%.
| Party | Selected PU votes | Four-party share |
|---|---|---|
| APC | 29,788 | 51.4% |
| LP | 24,529 | 42.3% |
| PDP | 3,342 | 5.8% |
| NNPP | 311 | 0.5% |
| Four-party total | 57,970 | 100.0% |
No declared comparison is shown. Mundx will add a declared column only when the source register contains a traceable LGA collation record with its authority, form level, retrieval date and confidence.
Ward evidence
How the four-party pattern varies within Ifako-Ijaye
APC leads 8 and LP leads 3 of the 11 ward rollups. Every row is calculated from selected PU observations and keeps the representation count beside the vote totals.
| Ward | PU leader | APC | LP | PDP | NNPP | Four-party | PUs represented |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ajegunle/Akinde/Animashaun | APC | 2,153 | 1,301 | 302 | 3 | 3,759 | 49 / 49 |
| Alakuko/Kollington | APC | 1,928 | 933 | 294 | 17 | 3,172 | 47 / 47 |
| Fagba/Akute Road | APC | 1,968 | 1,700 | 131 | 8 | 3,807 | 30 / 30 |
| Ijaiye/Agbado/Kollington | APC | 4,178 | 2,755 | 541 | 33 | 7,507 | 120 / 120 |
| Ijaiye/Ojokoro | APC | 6,197 | 4,661 | 539 | 42 | 11,439 | 160 / 160 |
| Ijaye | LP | 1,596 | 1,698 | 239 | 75 | 3,608 | 39 / 39 |
| Iju Isaga | APC | 2,856 | 2,303 | 287 | 19 | 5,465 | 72 / 72 |
| Iju-Obawole | APC | 2,267 | 2,251 | 217 | 20 | 4,755 | 58 / 58 |
| New Ifako/Oyemekun | LP | 2,947 | 3,220 | 390 | 27 | 6,584 | 82 / 82 |
| Old Ifako/Karaole | LP | 1,786 | 2,035 | 199 | 19 | 4,039 | 47 / 47 |
| Pamada/Abule-Egba | APC | 1,912 | 1,672 | 203 | 48 | 3,835 | 57 / 57 |
Largest ward rollups
Five local records in context
These notes restate the largest ward aggregates in prose so their leader, margin and representation remain readable outside the table.
- Ijaiye/Ojokoro: APC leads with 6,197 of 11,439 four-party votes, a margin of 1,536 over LP. The rollup represents 160 of 160 inventory units.
- Ijaiye/Agbado/Kollington: APC leads with 4,178 of 7,507 four-party votes, a margin of 1,423 over LP. The rollup represents 120 of 120 inventory units.
- New Ifako/Oyemekun: LP leads with 3,220 of 6,584 four-party votes, a margin of 273 over APC. The rollup represents 82 of 82 inventory units.
- Iju Isaga: APC leads with 2,856 of 5,465 four-party votes, a margin of 553 over LP. The rollup represents 72 of 72 inventory units.
- Iju-Obawole: APC leads with 2,267 of 4,755 four-party votes, a margin of 16 over LP. The rollup represents 58 of 58 inventory units.
Evidence beneath the wards
Largest represented polling-unit rollups
The ten rows below are ordered by four-party vote count. This is not a turnout ranking and does not imply official validation. The source label identifies which selected observation supplied the four party fields.
| Polling unit | Ward | PU leader | Four-party votes | Selected source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
24-10-06-008Ogundimu Pry. Sch. | Iju-Obawole | APC | 679 | CCIJ |
24-10-08-040Eben A/C Pry. Sch. | Ijaiye/Ojokoro | LP | 338 | CCIJ |
24-10-06-0091, Lucas St. Obawole | Iju-Obawole | LP | 334 | CCIJ |
24-10-06-048Entrance Of Kayode Williams Farm(K-Farm) Obawole,Iju | Iju-Obawole | LP | 317 | CCIJ |
24-10-05-001Iju Station Pry. Sch. Iju | Iju Isaga | LP | 277 | CCIJ |
24-10-04-030Junc. Akinte Str/Ndike Obawole | Fagba/Akute Road | LP | 274 | CCIJ |
24-10-05-01319, Oguntade St. Iju | Iju Isaga | APC | 273 | CCIJ |
24-10-04-021Junction Of Ndike St./Powerline St. Obawole | Fagba/Akute Road | LP | 261 | CCIJ |
24-10-07-020In Front Of Agric Quarters Compound Beside Oko-Oba Abbatoir | Pamada/Abule-Egba | APC | 251 | CCIJ |
24-10-11-016Along Abule Iroko Road Opp. Saka Palace, Ajegunle | Ajegunle/Akinde/Animashaun | LP | 251 | CCIJ |
How this record was built
From inventory to local aggregation
Apply one policy
Complete CCIJ observations take precedence, followed by complete Mark Essien fallbacks. Ifako-Ijaye's selected records break down as CCIJ 725, MARK 36. The policy is deterministic and preserves the original source label.
Sum without declaring
Party values are summed from PU to ward and LGA. Missing observations stay visible instead of being estimated. In Ifako-Ijaye, 761 of 761 units are represented, while the scope still excludes fourteen parties.
What this rollout preserves. The page is designed to survive a later declared-result addition without changing its URL. A future collation record would appear as a separately sourced layer beside this aggregation; it would not overwrite the PU evidence, backfill a missing total, or turn the calculated ward table into an official document. Every future update should retain the review date and show which layer changed, so readers can distinguish new source evidence from a presentation revision. Keeping that contract stable now is more important than generating hundreds of local pages at once.
Questions this page answers
Ifako-Ijaye evidence notes
Did APC officially win Ifako-Ijaye?
This page does not make that claim. It says APC leads Mundx's four-party aggregation of selected polling-unit observations. A statement about the declared LGA result requires a sourced collation record at the appropriate result layer.
What does representation mean?
It reports how many inventory units have a selected observation containing all four tracked party values. It does not establish sheet authenticity, capture all eighteen parties, or reproduce every correction made during collation.
Why preserve an unavailable field?
An explicit unavailable value is safer than promoting a calculated PU sum into an official result. It also makes future source work concrete: add the declared layer only with a form level, authority URL, retrieval date and documented confidence.
How is this different from the Ifako-Ijaye place page?
The permanent Ifako-Ijaye place record describes geography across cycles. This contest page is tied to the 2023 presidential election, its evidence layers and its source limitations. The URLs serve different questions and should not duplicate one another.
Provenance
What is official, and what Mundx calculated
The current source register does not contain a declared LGA collation record for this geography. Mundx therefore leaves the declared layer empty instead of inferring one from polling units.
Mundx's second layer is a four-party aggregation of selected polling-unit observations. It applies policy all-complete-ccij-first-v1: complete CCIJ records take precedence, then complete Mark Essien records fill remaining units.
- INEC 2023 presidential IReV record.
- State/FCT collation reproduction.
- 176,409 represented units from an inventory of 176,846; 437 remain unresolved nationally.
Canonical PU policy all-complete-ccij-first-v1 · CCIJ commit e38e3bc9a22a
Reuse boundary. Mundx Analytics confirms permission to publish and redistribute the source-derived records in this release. No standard open-data licence or third-party bulk-reuse terms are specified.
Published by Mundx Analytics · reviewed by Mundx Analytics Data Team on 22 September 2026 · official sources retrieved 2026-08-20.