Results' Collation: Court Dismisses Labour Party's Suit Against INEC

It is only the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, that is empowered by law to determine the mode of collating and transmitting election results.

The above declaration was made by Justice Emeka Nwite of a Federal High Court in Abuja who in a judgment on a suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1454/2022 filed by the Labour Party, LP, with INEC as the sole defendant, held that it is only INEC that has the prerogative to direct how the Polling Unit Presiding Officer, PUPO, should transfer election results, including the total number of accredited voters and results of the ballot.

Justice Nwite equally held that the collating and transferring of election results manually in the 2023 general elections cannot be said to be contrary to the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022.

It would be recalled that the LP had urged the court to declare that INEC has no power to opt for a manual method apart from the electronic method provided for by the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022.

The party prayed the court to issue an order compelling INEC to comply with the Electoral Act, 2022 on the electronic transmission of results in the forthcoming general election.

In the judgment delivered on January 23, 2023, a copy of which The Nation sighted on Friday, Justice Nwite held that the plaintiff misconstrued the provisions of the law and proceeded to dismiss the suit.

According to the judge, "From the argument of the learned plaintiff’s counsel, I am of the humble opinion that the bone of contention or the sections that seek for interpretation are actually sections 50(2) 60(5) and 62(2) of the Electoral Act, 2022.

“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 the result as postulated by the learned counsel.”

Justice Nwite noted that section 60(5) of the Electoral Act, 2022 provides for the transfer of election results, including the total number of accredited voters from the polling unit.

The court equally noted that section 62(2) of the same Act provides for compilation, maintenance and continuous update of the register of election results as a distinct database for all polling units’ results as collated in all elections conducted by the commission.

In the words of Justice Nwite: “The said section 62(2) has mandated that such a register of election results shall be kept in an electronic format by the commission at its national headquarters.

“Now a close reading of section 50(2) of the Act has provided for voting and transmission of results to be done in accordance with the procedure to be determined by the commission. 

“This is to say that the commission is free to prescribe or choose how election results shall be transmitted.

“In the same ambit, section 60(5) empowered the Polling Unit Presiding Officer to transfer the election results, including the total number of accredited voters and results of the ballot in a manner to be prescribed by the commission.

“This is also to say the commission is again free to prescribe to the Polling Units’ Presiding Officer the manner in which to collate and transfer the election results as well as the accredited number of voters in an election under the Act.

“In view of the foregoing, can the act of the defendant (INEC) in collating and transferring election results manually in the forthcoming 2023 general elections be said to be contrary to the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022?

“The answer can only be in the negative, as there is nowhere in the above-cited sections where the commission or any of its agents is mandated to only use an electronic means in collating or transferring of election results.

“If any, the commission is only mandated to collate and transfer election results and the number of accredited voters in a way or manner deemed fit by it.

"Considering the above, I am finding that by the provisions of sections 50(2) and 60(5) of the Electoral Act, 2022 the correct interpretation of the said statutes is that the defendant (INEC) is free to prescribe the manner in which election results could be transmitted, and I so hold.

“Consequently, this matter is hereby dismissed.”

All rights reserved. This material and other digital volumes on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express written permission from THE NEWS ACCELERATOR NETWORK.

For advert placement, please contact thenewsacceleratornetwork@gmail.com or 08033599492.