Justice Emeka Nwite, in a judgment, 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 the 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
The judgment was on a suit filed by the Labour Party (LP), with INEC as the only defendant.
LP had prayed the court to declare that INEC has no power to choose manual method other than the electronic method provided for by the relevant provisions the Electoral Act, 2022.
The Labour Party urged the court to issue an order directing INEC to comply with the Electoral Act, 2022 on electronic transmission of result in the forthcoming general election.
The judge said: “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,” the judge held.
Justice Nwite 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.
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.
“The said Section 62(2) has mandated that such register of election results shall be kept in an electronic format by the commission….
Read more on Lindaikejisblog.comEdited · 11h- tiffanie_glamThat’s not the bone of contention. The bone of contention is whether INEC followed the mode of collation it stipulated by itself. The law says that only INEC can determine the mode and once it determines that mode, then that is what it would follow. INEC stipulated electronic transmission of result from the polling unit. The pertinent question is: did INEC follow the mode it stipulated in the presidential election?
