When INEC Contradicts Herself And The Court Makes A Blunder: A Case Study Of Labour Party Vs INEC -By John Oyebanji

The Federal High Court in Abuja has yesterday upheld that only the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has been empowered by law to determine the mode of collating and transmitting election results. The judgement was on a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1454/2022, as filed by Labour Party.

Quoting Honourable Justice Emeka Nwite, “this is to say that the commission is at liberty to prescribe or choose the manner in which election results shall be transmitted.” A clear awareness of the judgment is a proof of gaffe, as seen in the Machina vs Lawan’s case, the court clearly upheld a manipulative axis of the law. I am not a lawyer, but acting as self-professed Amicus curiae (friend of the court), my observations are hereby penned.

The INEC Chairman, Prof. Mahmood Yakubu when he received the Common-Wealth Pre-Election Assessment Mission to Nigeria, led by the Common-Wealth Adviser and Head of Africa Section, Political Team, Ms. Abiola Sunmonu, at the INEC Headquarters, Abuja, in November 2022 said “let me seize this opportunity to respond to a story emanating from a section of the media that the Commission has decided to jettison the uploading of the polling unit results real time on election day. It should please be disregarded as fake news.”

“The Commission will upload polling unit results and citizens will have real-time access as we upload from polling units. This innovation was introduced by the Commission and it cannot turn around to undermine itself, this technology has come to stay. We are serving the citizens; how can we deny citizens access to the results of a process conducted by them at the level of polling units?”

The Prof. Yakubu-led INEC had at many times confidently boasted that the commission is opting for real-time collations via the IReV. Should we then not hold the commission responsible for not living up to her promise?

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAYS?

Sections 50(2) and 60(5) of the Electoral Act 2022 upon which the Justice Nwite’s judgment was based upon literally says “INEC is TO PRESCRIBE the procedure for voting and transmission of results”; “Presiding Officer is required to transfer the results including the total number of accredited voters and the results of the ballot in a manner AS PRESCRIBED by INEC.”

The above basis upon which the suit was dismissed could have been justiciable and accepted as a cause of action, if INEC hadn’t contradicted herself with that singular act, and non-transparent process.

The INEC Regulations & Guidelines for the Conduct of Elections, 2022 renders the judgment inconsistent, as Paragraph 38 of the guidelines deals with Electronic Transmission of Results and Upload of Results to IReV. The Paragraph “as prescribed” by the commission stipulates that when voting and announcement of results have been completed at a polling unit, the PO “must”:

“Electronically transmit the result of the polling unit to INEC’s col­lation system; Use the BVAs to upload a scanned copy of the EC8A result sheet to the INEC Result Viewing Portal (IReV).”

Paragraph 48 of the electoral guidelines clearly stipulates that “The condition for an election result to be collated is that the Collation Officer confirms that the number of accredited vot­ers is equal to the number of voters recorded in the BVAS, and that the votes scored by political parties as recorded on the result sheet is correct and equal to the result transmitted electronically to INEC’s colla­tion system.”

The quoted paragraphs are prescribed methods of collating results by INEC, upon which the Justice Nwite’s judgment could have been made. Should we agree that INEC’s guidelines are inconsistent, or electoral prescriptions can be made for manipulative reasons?

Clearly speaking, INEC contradicted her written and verbal prescriptions, and the court helped in sustaining such contradictions.

“Faith” John Oyebanji is a young Nigerian, writes from Modakeke, Osun State, and can be contacted via oyebanjijohn00@gmail.com