The candidate of the Labour Party (LP) in the presidential election held on the 25th day of February, 2023, Mr. Peter Gregory Obi, has insisted that the mandatory provisions of the Electoral Act 2022, and the subsidiary legislations including Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of General Elections 2022 and Manual for Election Officials 2023 which empowered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to introduced the use of modem technology for the conduct of the 2023 General Election is sacrosanct and should be the bedrock on which the election ought to have been conducted.
In his Final Written Address at the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) holden at the Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja, Peter Obi lamented that INEC abandoned and discarded the much expected upload/transmission of the result of the election in real time on the day of the election from the polling unit to the IReV, thus violating its own regulations.
He noted that rather than the agreed process, INEC very strangely, uploaded blurred, unreadable and inaccessible document/images to the IReV.
Peter Obi stated as follows:
Pursuant to the mandatory provisions of the Electoral Act 2022, and the subsidiary legislations made thereunder, to wit: Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of General Elections 2022 (Regulations and Guidelines), and Manual for Election Officials 2023 (Manual for Election Officials), INEC introduced the use of modem technology for the conduct of the 2023 General Election. By this, INEC represented/provided that it would use Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) for the accreditation of voters in the polling units, and the upload/transmission of the result of the election in real time on the day of the election and during the electoral proves to the INEC Result Viewing Portal (IReV).
INEC vigorously campaigned that, the use of technology in the electoral process, including the upload/ transmission of the result of the election in real time, using the BVAS from the polling unit to the IReV will ensure the integrity and the credibility of election result in Nigeria.
Contrary to the requirement of the law and in manifest disregard of its own representation, the 1st Respondent abandoned and discarded the much expected upload/transmission of the result of the election in real time on the day of the election from the polling unit to the IReV.
INEC uploaded blurred documents on the IReV
Rather, very strangely, blurred, unreadable and inaccessible document/images were uploaded by the 1st Respondent to the IReV, purporting same to be the result of the election in various polling units.
These blurred images and inaccessible documents, which were purported to be the result of the election in the polling unit (Form EC8As). The net result of the upload of the blurred images on the IReV, was that the result of the election could neither be authenticated nor verified, and thus, lacked credibility and transparency. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents contention/claim that the presiding officers “duly uploaded polling unit results to the IReV, flies in the face of the unchallenged documentary evidence of blurred/unreadable copies of the purported Forms EC8A certified by the 1st Respondent and given to the Petitioners as the result of die election as per the Form ECSAs in the polling units.
Four boxes of blurred documents uploaded on the IReV by the 1st Respondent and falsely represented as Form EC8A, were tendered by PW4. [The documents] are blurred copies of documents certified by the 1st Respondent as purported Forms EC8A, ECSB, EC4OG and EC60E, which were given to the Petitioners as certified copies of the original document in possession of the Ist Respondent under Sections 102, 104 and 105 of the Evidence Act.
These certified copies of purported original copies of election results/documents referred to above, where in some cases, blank A4 papers and pictures of unknown persons.
We will show in the ensuing argument that, the 2nd and 3rd Respondent’s case as per paragraph 76 of their Reply to the Petition, to the effect “that the results being uploaded on the IReV, are as contained in the respective INEC Forms, and that all the results being uploaded emanated from polling units where elections were conducted”, is totally out of sync with the unchallenged documentary evidence before the Honourable Court and identified above.
In response to the Petitioners request and the subpoena issued by the Honourable Court, the 1st Respondent blatantly failed to comply with the requirement of the law, by refusing to provide the Petitioners with certified copies of the “top copies (Electoral Operations’ Copies) of the Form EC8A in the polling unit under paragraph 39 of the Regulations and Guidelines.
Strangely, only the result of the Presidential election, equally held in the same polling units, using the same Infrastructure, could not, according to INEC, as required by law, be uploaded/transmitted from the polling unit to the IReV.
Apart from the blatant refusal to comply with the mandatory requirements of the law, the certified copies of the result of the election given to the Petitioners by the 1st Respondent, manifestly show that the purported Forms EC8As in several polling units, were affected by mutilations, cancellations, alterations and outright swapping of votes in favour of the 2nd to the 4th Respondents and against the Petitioners. These acts of non-compliance are manifest on the certified copies of the Forms EC8A given by the 1st Respondent to the Petitioners and are deemed as sufficient proof of the irregularities/non-compliance thereon within the meaning of the provisions of Section 137n of the Electoral Act 2022.
The only excuse invented by the Respondents in their Reply to the Petition was that the refusal to comply with the specific requirement of the law to upload/transmit the result of the election using the BVAS from the polling unit to the IReV, was the occurrence of the alleged technological glitches on the day of the election. Though the Presidential election was conducted at the same time, on the same day, at the same respective polling units with the National Assembly (Senate/House of Representatives) elections, the results of the National Assembly elections were successfully uploaded/transmitted from the BVAS to the IReV Portal.
Strangely, only the result of the Presidential election, equally held in the same polling units, using the same Infrastructure, could not, according to the 1st Respondent, as required by law, be uploaded/transmitted from the polling unit to the IReV.
The Petitioners provided unchallenged evidence that, the failure/neglect to upload/transmit the result of the Presidential election held on 25th February 2023, was a violation of the collation process prescribed under the Electoral Act, and also substantially affected the result of the election.
