In Abuja, the Presidential Election Petition Court has accepted the final report of the European Union Election Observation Mission (EUEOM) as evidence in the case challenging the outcome of Nigeria's February 25 presidential poll.
The report, which criticized the conduct of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) during the disputed election, was admitted as an exhibit in the case filed by Atiku Abubakar, the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). President Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC) emerged victorious in the election, defeating Atiku and other candidates.
Both Atiku and another opposition candidate, Peter Obi of the Labour Party, filed separate petitions citing electoral malpractices and other issues. The EU Observers report, which was brought to court by Atiku's legal team, stated that the 2023 general elections did not meet INEC's promise of transparency and credibility. However, Tinubu's spokesperson dismissed the report, calling it a result of a poorly done desk job.
On June 23, Atiku and Obi concluded their cases, presenting witnesses and documents before the court. The court adjourned for INEC, APC, and Tinubu to present their defense. During the resumed hearing, INEC called its only witness, Lawrence Bayode, an IT expert. Bayode testified that there was substantial compliance with the electoral act in the conduct of the presidential election.
Under cross-examination, Atiku's lawyer attempted to submit a copy of the EU Observers report, but Tinubu's lawyer objected to its admissibility. The court conditionally accepted the report as an exhibit. Bayode read excerpts from the report, stating that only 31% of the presidential election results uploaded on the IReV system were correct, indicating deficiencies in the training of polling staff.
Bayode also mentioned that not all results of the presidential poll were uploaded on the IReV portal, even after Tinubu was declared the president-elect. He confirmed that the BVAS machines were introduced to ensure transparency and integrity but clarified that the system did not have a mechanism to distinguish presidential election results from those of the National Assembly poll.
In his petition, Atiku alleged that INEC engaged an IT consultant to introduce a technology called Device Management System (DMS), which was used to intercept, filter, and control the transmission of data from the BVAS devices to the IReV platform. Atiku claimed that this intervention favored Tinubu. After the cross-examination, INEC's defense concluded.
The proceedings shed light on the ongoing legal battle regarding the presidential election, with both sides presenting their arguments and evidence before the court.
0 Comments