Some senior lawyers have faulted the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for approaching the Court of Appeal, seeking to reconfigure the BVAS machine used for the February 25 presidential and National Assembly election. INEC had after the presidential election returned the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Bola Ahmed Tinubu, as the winner.
Dissatisfied, candidates of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Atiku Abubakar and Labour Party (LP), Peter Obi, had approached the court seeking leave to inspect the materials used for the election. The court granted the application.
Consequently, INEC ran to court asking that the court’s order granting the two candidates permission to inspect election materials be varied.
The Commission is equally seeking leave of court to reconfigure BVAS for this Saturday’s governorship and State House of Assembly election Reacting to INEC’s request, a rights activist, Tosin Ojaomo said it is most unfortunate that the Commission is playing on the intelligence of Nigerians.
Ojaomo said: “The most interesting part of this action is that INEC is aware that the bone of contention is the BVAS which simply means that the fact in issue is the manipulation of the BVAS to subvert the will of the Nigerian people.
“How can INEC be asking the court for the reconfiguration of the BVAS when the subject matter of the legal action in court is the data on the BVAS? If INEC had complied with its own regulations for the presidential election, we would not be where we are today because the result would have been uploaded at the polling units and those who lost would have seen it fairly and transparently.
“Up till now, the whole results have not been uploaded on the BVAS. It is my opinion that the court should reject this malicious application from INEC, the BVAS must not be tampered with until the parties before the Tribunal l are allowed access to the data therein.”
On his part, Peter Erivwode commended the swift effort of the legal team of both the LP and PDP in approaching the Court of Appeal being the court of first instance for the presidential election petition. The lawyer equally commended the Court of Appeal for granting the reliefs sought by the aggrieved candidates.
“The essence is basically to prevent INEC from dissipation of whatever evidence that may be contained in the equipment in respect of which the orders were sought and granted.
“The court having granted the orders as prayed, the duty incumbent on INEC is to assist the court at arriving at the justice of the case by ensuring speedy access to the parties and ensuring compliance with the said orders.
“The application of INEC seeking to vary the orders made on the ground that it needed to reconfigure the BVAS for the Governorship Elections is a deliberate attempt to get the endorsement of the court to tamper with the evidence which the court had hitherto preserved in its wisdom.
“INEC as an umpire who has come under serious suspicion of bias and manipulation ought to be concerned and be seen to be ready to defend its integrity and not to be taking steps intended to wilfully destroy evidence that may assist the court in the determination of the cases challenging the outcome of the elections.
“It is therefore incumbent on the court to seek expert opinion as to whether or not INEC can proceed with governorship election without tempering with the BVAS or whether they can reconfigure the same without altering the evidence already preserved by the orders of court.”
In his own reaction, another lawyer, Seyi Arowosebe, said: “On one hand, I find fault in the application of INEC to reconfigure the BIVAS at this crucial time.
“It is tantamount to tampering with evidence. The moment the BVAS is reconfigured, the data sought to be obtained and relied on by the interested parties will be lost.
“On the flip side, we need to take a careful look at the functionality of the BVAS. Is it able to run two elections without the need for reconfiguration?
“If Yes, INEC must not be allowed to reconfigure the BVAS against the election of Saturday 11th March 2023. If, however, the BVAS cannot be put to use twice serially without configuration, then the application may have merit.”
Also reacting, another lawyer, Biodun Olugbemide noted that: “Last Friday, at the Court of Appeal presided over by Justice Joseph Ikyegh, the two presidential candidates of People’s Democratic Party; Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, and Peter Obi of Labour Party, got the permission to inspect the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS), which they planned using to prove the allegations of non-compliance and rigging of the poll.
“The Court also by the order permitted the duo to carry out digital forensic inspection of BVAS machines used for the conduct of the February 25th Presidential Election.
“According to INEC, the reconfiguration is necessary for smooth running of the coming election, but what must be borne in mind is that this is not the first time INEC will be using BVAS. The Electoral Act just permitted its inclusion to be in the public domain, meaning INEC cannot hide behind any insurmountable challenge that is new to them, as the reason for the call for variation.
“Also, it must be borne in mind that it is not enough for justice to be done, but according to Lord Hewart, justice must also be seen to have been done. Whether INEC tampers with the electronic data or not, is not the main issue, but the fact that their action will forever be questionable, if their prayer is granted, is enough to cast aspersions on her integrity.”
