Court throws out Obi’s suit challenging INEC mode of conduct of elections
Federal High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) sitting in Abuja has ruled the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) can choose to the modality it wishes to adopt in the collation and transmission of results during elections in the country.
The court subsequently threw out the suit filed by the Presidential candidate of the Labour Party during the February 25 polls, Peter Obi.
Ruling, Tuesday, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1454/2022 filed by the Labour Party (LP), with INEC as the only defendant, the court said that Section 60(5) of the Electoral Act, 2022 provides for the transfer of election result, including the total number of the accredited voters from the polling unit.
Obi had dragged INE before the court over its conduct of the last February 25 presidential ad National Assembly election, asking the court to determine if the electoral umpire was right in disregarding the guidelines provided in the Electoral Act 2022 as Amended in the area of collation and transmission of polling results.
INEC had, after the February 25 election processed results with disregard to the guidelines which stipulates immediate transmission of the results via the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) machines.
This follows claims by INEC that its BVAS experienced technical hitches immediately after the close of voting, with the Labour Party insisting that the shutdown of the machines provided a window for electoral misconduct across the country, culminating in grossly manipulated figures.
However, delivering his ruling, Justice Emeka Nwite, further also held that it is only INEC that has the prerogative to direct how Polling Unit Presiding Officer should transfer election results, including the total number of accredited voters and results of the ballot.
Before dismissing Obi’s suit, Justice Nwite held that the collating and transferring election results manually in the 2023 general elections is in line with the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022.
“From the argument of the learned plaintiff’s counsel, I am of the humble opinion that the bone of contention or the sections that seeks for interpretation are actually sections 50(2) 60(5) and 62(2) of the Electoral Act, 2922.
“Section 47(2) as cited by the learned counsel to the plaintiff only deals with accreditation of voters using a Smart Card Reader, but not collation or transmission of result as postulated by the learned counsel,” Justice Nwite held.
He noted that Section 62(2) of the same Act provides for compilation, maintenance and continuous update of the register of election result as distinct database for all polling units’ results as collated in all elections conducted by the commission.
