Follow Us on Google
From Godwin Tsa, Abuja
Condemnations continue to trail the conduct and outcome of the February 25 presidential elections, with some senior lawyers describing the entire process as “shambolic.”
Speaking on the subject matter, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN, Aikhunegbe Malik, has described the entire process as “shambolic.”
He said, “Unarguably, the organization, and conduct of the elections, going by what I witnessed in my polling unit and reports from across the country, was most shambolic. The elections depict INEC as an inept, inefficient, and irresponsible electoral body, often ill-prepared for the solitary purpose of its establishment. For God’s sake, how can a major election organized by INEC every four years, in this age and time, be affected, bedevilled, and or characterized by such rather laughable features as insufficient ballot papers, absence of ink and ink pads, late arrival of electoral materials, absence of electoral officers, omissions of party logos, etc. This election, in terms of organisation, is only second to none for uselessness, in the annals of elections in Nigeria.
“Without a doubt, the INEC boss has a lot of explanations to make to Nigerians regarding the shameful conduct of his commission. With the humongous taxpayers’ money received from the national treasury and the four years window it had to prepare for the elections, nothing justifies the mockery of our electoral process as witnessed yesterday (Saturday 25th February. 2023).
It is his contention that the election may not pass the test of judicial probity.
Speaking on the Electoral Act, a Professor of Law, Sam Erugo, SAN, said that INEC failed to conduct the presidential and National Assembly elections in compliance with the Act.
“There was a report of substantial failure of presiding officers to transmit the presidential elections to the IReV from the polling unit as required by law including non-use of BVAS for accreditation in some states.
Erugo noted that the act contrived the law, noting that results of the National Assembly poll conducted at the same time were uploaded to the portal.
“It stands to reason too, that the BVAS was also not used for the accreditation of some voters. First on the issue of accreditation, by Paragraph 18 of the INEC Regulations and Guidelines for 2023 Elections, verification of voters will be done using the bimodal voter accreditation system.
The regulation provides that: ‘(a) In accordance with Section 47(2) of the Electoral Act 2022, a person intending to vote shall be verified to be the same person on the register of voters by the use of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) or any other device approved by the commission, in the manner prescribed in these regulations and guidelines.
“Again, by section 60(5) of the Electoral Act, 2022, on the conclusion of voting, ‘the presiding officer shall transfer the results including total number of accredited voters and the results of the ballot in a manner as prescribed by the commission.’
The manner prescribed by the commission is found at Paragraph 38 of the INEC Electoral Regulations and Guidelines for the 2023 Election (not the Electoral Act) which provides that: “On completion of all the polling unit voting and results procedures, the presiding officer shall: (i) Electronically transmit or transfer the result of the polling unit, direct to the collation system as prescribed by the Commission. (ii) Use the BVAS to upload a scanned copy of the EC8A to the INEC Result Viewing Portal (IReV), as prescribed by the Commission. (iii) Take the BVAS and the original copy of each of the forms in tamper [1] evident envelope to the registration area/ward collation officer, in the company of security agents. The polling agents may accompany the presiding officer to the RA/Ward collation centre.
Erugo also stated that Section 64 (4) of the Electoral Act made further provisions.
Another lawyer, Mr Babatunde Awe, said section 134, (b), stated that where there was non-compliance with the Act, in the case of non-uploading of results to the INEC portal, the law had been breached.
“When the law says you should do something in a mode of interpreting status, it is strict; when the law provides a way of doing something and that law is clear, there is no other way that you must do it.’’
When there is a law and things have been done, not in accordance with the law guiding or stipulating the manner for doing those things, that infraction could count against the person who has committed the infraction.
In Section 64, when it comes to issues of the veracity of the result or where there is a complaint from any of the party agents, section 64 (6), says you have to look at the BVAS, and other aspects, so when you come and they are uploading results in hard copy and those results have not been verified using the medium that we were assured that law has said should be used, then there is a problem because the results cannot be verified.”
