By Evaristus Bassey
Recently Buba Galadima was quoted as saying that they in New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP) have moved on and are preparing for 2027 or 2031, as election tribunals in Nigeria have never taken the seat from someone who had been declared incumbent. As a matter of fact, until Kenya supreme court declared the country’s 2017 presidential election null and void and directed for a rerun within sixty days, no African nation ever tampered with a declared presidential election result no matter how flawed it was. So historically, Buba Galadima is correct. It has never happened in Nigeria, and this is because of the available legal framework at the time.
Prior to 2023, it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a presidential petition to even have a glimmer of hope of succeeding. This was because it was simply impossible to provide proof, owing to the sheer volume of evidence needed. The presidency is the only office that has the entire nation as its constituency, therefore any petition regarding electoral infractions was required to show that it was nationwide and substantial enough to affect the entire outcome. Witnesses would have to be drawn from all over the nation for oral evidence. The logistics of bringing these witnesses to testify against malpractices from all around the country, accounted partly for the failure of the petitions. More importantly, it wasn’t possible to prove that the malpractices were substantial enough to affect the entire outcome of the elections. So yeah, there was rigging as alleged and probably proven, but was that enough to affect the elections that took place all over the country? The answer was always a resounding no, even with the 2007 elections that Y’Ardua personally confessed were flawed. Winners could rest on their oars knowing that their win couldn’t be disproved. So long as you managed to have yourself declared president-elect, you were good to go. If the defendants could not show that there was substantial noncompliance, then the respondents would usually win the case.
The electoral act 2022 is however a game changer. Section 62(1) and (2) empower INEC to establish a form of electronic register of results which come directly from polling units which would be accessible to the public. Above all, Section 137 of the Act states that “It shall not be necessary for a party who alleges noncompliance with the provisions of this Act for the conduct of elections to call for oral evidence if originals or certified true copies manifestly disclose the non-compliance alleged.”
Whereas Buhari failed to sign the Act before the 2019 elections, the signing of the revised electoral act a year before the 2023 elections has been the greatest act of the Buhari administration because it attempts to bring sovereignty back to the people. We admire the western world because of their high human development index. When sovereignty resides with the people, leaders are accountable to the people because they could be sacked in the next elections if they don’t perform well. This puts some responsibility on leaders to perform accountably. There is therefore a great link between democracy and development. I know that many Arab states have woken up to being highly developed and yet they are not democratic. The need to open up to the world, and the need to be competitive in a global market economy have been drivers for these Arab nations, notwithstanding the stupendous oil wealth. It remains a truism however that where leaders are truly chosen by the people, there is greater responsiveness towards their needs and their development. Apart from perhaps the 1999, the 2011 and the 2015 elections which to a great extent reflected the will of the people, most other elections since the beginning of a new republic in 1999 have been manipulated by vested interests. The 2022 electoral act provides the opportunity for accountable leadership because invariably, when the act is devoid of manipulations, the people will choose their leaders.
Unlike previous electoral acts, the most outstanding provision was that on electronic voting systems. Section 47(2) allows for the introduction of smart card reader or other technologies for the purpose of accreditation, verification, and authentication of voters. This was absent in the 2015 revised act of 2010. In the 2010 electoral act section 52 had made an outright ban on electronic voting. The 2015 amendment removed the ban but made no express approval of electronic means, rather saying that voting shall thenceforth be in accordance with the procedure determined by INEC. This provision is what empowered INEC to come up with the card reader as a means of accreditation in the 2015 elections. However, after the appeal court sacked Wike and Udom based on over-voting that was non-compliant with the smart card-reader accredited voters, the supreme court ruled that card reader had no place in the law. This helped save Buhari’s neck against Atiku in the 2019 petition, as INEC denied having a server. In the 2022 act however, when it comes to over-voting, INEC is empowered in Section 51(2) to use the number of accredited voters to check overvoting. Section 64(4-5) empowers collating and returning officers to use the number of accredited voters and the votes recorded and transmitted directly from the polling units to support the announcement of results, as Section 62(1) and (2) empowers INEC to establish a form of electronic register of results from polling units which would be accessible to the public. This is what INEC refers to as the iRev. INEC upgraded the smart card reader eventually to a biometric device that not only checks the authenticity of the permanent voter’s card but confirms the biometrics of an individual – BVAS.
The digital footprints cannot therefore be left untraced and the iREV is indeed a tool for forensic experts to examine and assess discrepancies since results are to be transmitted in real time to the iREV. Most importantly section 137 of the Act may have whittled down the importance of oral evidence where certified true copies exist. Whereas previously oral evidence was a herculean task, the 2023 election petitions do not have a need for so much oral evidence as the evidence itself has come from INEC in certified true copies! Whether at gubernatorial level or presidential level, the 2022 electoral act has made evidence easier to gather, with the emphasis on certified true copies.
Social media access, where citizens freely took pictures of their polling unit results, as results were required by law to be announced at polling units and signed off by polling agents, has been a veritable means of assessing the credibility of INEC, and eventually the credibility of the courts. Through this means, people have realized how much of a fraud INEC is, as very many results showed disparity between what was announced at polling units and what was displayed eventually.
Whatever is the outcome of the cases in the courts, it will not be for lack of evidence, it will be the presence of extra-judicial factors. The judiciary would either give fillip to electoral banditry and enhance the recklessness and brigandage of the political class by its ruling or simply bolster citizen confidence in which case the fear in citizens of complete state capture by vested interests would be allayed. Whatever the courts rule eventually, as law abiding citizens, Nigerians will have to accept and live with the pain or with the hope. What is certain is that Nigerians will no longer be taken by surprise as the malpractices of the 2023 elections will be anticipated in subsequent elections and apprehended by the people.
