The dispute as to who is the duly elected governor of Osun state has finally been settled by the Supreme Court of Nigeria but with far-reaching implications
Delivering judgment in the appeal
filed by Gboyega Oyetola, candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), a
five-member panel of the apex court affirmed the election of Ademola Adeleke as
the governor.
Among several issues raised by
Oyetola and the APC, the focal point of their case was over-voting.
They contended that the presiding officers who conducted the elections in 744 polling units across the state “did not comply with the Electoral Act, INEC regulations, guidelines and manuals in that they did not use the BVAS to accredit and verify voters in many of the polling units or did not properly accredit voters”.
The resultant effect according to
the appellant was that there was over-voting in that the number of votes
recorded in the polling unit result sheet (form EC8A) were more than the number
of voters accredited, verified and recorded in the BVAS of the corresponding
polling units.
However, the appellants failed to
prove their case of over-voting.
INEC IS NOT BOUND TO
ELECTRONICALLY TRANSMIT RESULTS
Notably, the apex court
emphasised that there is no law that requires presiding officers to transmit by
BVAS the number of accredited voters or accreditation of the polls to the
database or backend server of INEC as claimed by the appellants.
“Therefore, the case of the
appellants that the presiding officers were bound to instantly or on-the-spot
transmit the number of accredited voters in the BVAS to the backend server or
database of INEC has no support,” Emmanuel Agim who read the lead judgment
said.
A federal high court in Abuja —
in a January 23 ruling — dismissed a suit filed by the Labour Party (LP)
seeking to compel the INEC to adopt an electronic method for transmitting
2023 election results.
Emeka Nwite, presiding judge,
held that the commission is at liberty to pick any method of
transmitting election results.
INEC DATABASE CANNOT PROVE
OVER-VOTING
The apex court in its judgment
held that to prove the allegation of over-voting, a petitioner cannot rely on
the INEC Result Viewing Portal (IReV) or information on INEC server or
database.
The BVAS, INEC voter register or
form EC8A showing the number of votes cast at each polling unit are the only
admissible evidence that can be used to ascertain over-voting.
“Since the BVAS was the focal
point and sole foundation of the appellant’s case, it was imperative that they
produce the BVAS of the 744 polling units or a certified true copy (CTC) of the
contents of the BVAS in evidence and show that the record therein established
non-accreditation, improper accreditation and over-voting in the 744 polling
unit,” the supreme court held.
“It is glaring that the appellant did not
provide in evidence, any BVAS in any of the 744 polling unit, but rather sought
to prove their case of wrong and improper accreditation and over-voting by
means of a report of the examination of the INEC database or backend server
containing the number of accredited voters and number of votes for each polling
unit transmitted from the BVAS.”
The court held that the
information relied on by petitioners “is not a direct record of the number of
accredited voters but is third-hand evidence derived from the database which is
a second-hand evidence derived from transmissions from the BVAS.”
The court also noted that the
information at the backend saver might not be accurate because the BVAS may
fail to transmit records for several reasons including poor internet
connection, loss of battery power, failure of INEC official to properly press
the submit button etc.
Additionally, the court
discountenanced the argument of the petitioners that the voters’ register is
not relevant.
Relying on INEC regulations for
the conduct of elections and the Electoral Act, the court pointed out that the
voters register is still relevant in voter accreditation and is to be used as
well with the BVAS machine.
“In the event of a conflict
between the record of accredited voters in the BVAS and the ticked names of the
registered voters due to human errors in the ticking of the names in the
register of voters, the BVAS record shall be used,” it said.
FUTURE IMPLICATIONS
One of the many implications of
the judgment is that any future petition brought on the grounds of INEC’s
failure to transmit results cannot stand.
One of the issues raised by Peter
Obi, Labour Party candidate, in his petition challenging the election of Bola
Tinubu as president is that the failure of INEC to promptly upload the
results from polling units through BVAS to IReV portal on the day of the
election invalidated the poll.
Also, any petitioners alleging
over-voting must be able to produce the BVAS, INEC voters register and or a
certified true copy of an INEC certificate of that record for each polling unit
“In the light of the foregoing, I
hold that it is the record in the BVAS machine of the accredited voters or a
certified true copy of an INEC certificate of that record for each polling unit
that can prove the number of accredited voters in a polling unit on the day of
election and nothing else,” the supreme court said.
Advertise on NigerianEye.com to reach thousands of our daily users
As court pleases.
ReplyDeleteThe supreme court has once again deceive Nigerians, but it will come back to hunt them.
ReplyDeleteIt, therefore means that the 2023 Presidential election case in court will not go anywhere as one of the arguments of LP and PDP is the transmission of election results electronically.
ReplyDelete