The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has told the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT) that neither the Electoral Act nor its guidelines contemplate electronic collation of result and the transmission and uploading of electronic result as a condition precedent to the announcement of the winner of the February 25 presidential election.

Rather, the electoral body told the tribunal that the return of Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as winner of the February 25 election was based on manual collation of the totality of the valid votes cast at the election.

Meanwhile, the commission has further told the tribunal that the February 25 presidential election was one if the best election conducted since the return of democracy in 1999, “same having been conducted with the aid of Bimodal Voter Accreditation System(BVAS) device which ensured that only registered and verified voters were accredited and voted at the election.”

It added: “The election result reflected the will of the people and the 1st petitioner (Atiku), though did not win the overall exercise, scored 6, 984, 520 to come second to Tinubu who scored a total of 8, 794. 726. While Atiku won his home state, Adamawa, Tinubu lost his home State, Lagos.”

While urging the tribunal to dismiss the petition by the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, against the outcome of the polls, INEC contended that “there is no where it is mandated to only use and electronic means in collating or transferring of election results.

Placing reliance on the judgment of the Abuja division of the Federal High Court in Labour Party Vs INEC, the stated that ” It is only mandated to collate and transfer election results and the number of accredited voters in a way or manner deemed fit by it.”

The commission’s position is contained in its notice of preliminary objection filed by its lead counsel, Abubakar Mahmoud, SAN, against the petition by PDP and Atiku.

INEC equally argued that the PDP and Atiku did not meet the constitutional requirements to be declared winner of the February 25 election.

It said: “The first petitioner (Atiku), failed to score, at least, one-quarter of the votes cast in at least two-thirds of the 36 states of the federation and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) and as such could not have been declared the winner.”

On the other hand, the commission noted that Tinubu scored 25 per cent of the valid votes cast in 29 states, namely: Ekiti, Kwara, Osun, Ondo, Ogun, Oyo, Yobe, Lagos, Gombe, Adamawa, Katsina, Jigawa, Nasarawa, Niger, Benue, Akwa Ibom, Edo, Kogi, Bauchi, Plateau, Bayelsa, Kaduna, Kebbi, Kano, Zamfara, Sokoto, Taraba, Borno and Rivers.

On the legal status of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), the electoral body argued that the FCT is not accorded any special status in the constitution as being erroneously portrayed by some political parties and candidates who lost the election.

Consequently, the commission contended that a candidate must not secure 25 per cent of votes in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) to be declared the winner.

“The provisions of the Constitution apply to FCT as if it were one of the states of the Federation and the use of the word ‘and’ in Section 134 (2) of the Constitution indicates nothing more than that in construing two-thirds of the states of the federation in which a candidate is required to score one-quarter of the votes cast.”

It argued that by the provision of the Constitution, the FCT “has the status of a state and ought to be recognised as if were a state of the federation.”

It added that the FCT, beyond being the country’s capital “has no special constitutional status over and above the other 36 states of the Federation to require a candidate in the presidential election to obtain at least 25 per cent of the votes cast in the FCT before being declared winner of the presidential election”.

INEC added: “The FCT is regarded as the 37th state of the federation and as such, a candidate needs to score 25 per cent of the valid votes cast in at least two-thirds of 37 states (to be declared as winner in the presidential election.

Contrary to the claim by the petitioners, INEC added: “The election was conducted in substantial compliance with the Electoral Act 2022 and was not marred by any corrupt practices.”

It further added that it complied fully with the Electoral Act and its guidelines by deploying BVAS device for the accreditation of voters and transmitting the accreditation data to its servers, as provided by sections 47(2) & (3); 60 (1), (2) & (5); 64 (4) (a) & (b); (5), (6) & (8); 71 and 73 of the Electoral Act and relevant paragraphs of its manual for election.

It denies that it at any stage, disconnect or caused any BVAS device to be disconnected from internet before transmission of data to the e-transmission system as alleged by the petitioners.

While maintaining that the President-elect Bola Ahmed Tinubu validly won the election, INEC said the FCT is not accorded any special status in the constitution as being erroneously portrayed by some political parties and candidates who lost the election.

It said: “The first petitioner (Atiku), failed to score, at least, one-quarter of the votes cast in at least two-thirds of the 36 states of the federation and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) and as such could not have been declared the winner.”

As against the claim by the petitioners, INEC added: “The election was conducted in substantial compliance with the Electoral Act 2022 and was not marred by any corrupt practices.”

The commission said the President-elect Bola Ahmed Tinubu validly won the election and was at the time of the polls qualified to contest the election.

“Having satisfied the requirements of Section 134 (2) (b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, the return of the second respondent as the winner of the presidential election conducted on 25th February 2023 is lawful, valid and constitutional.

” The petitioners neither scored the majority of the lawful votes cast at the election nor scored not less than one-quarter of the lawful votes cast in at least two-thirds of the 36 states of the Federation and the FCT.

Therefore, the first petitioner (Atiku) is not entitled to be returned as the winner of the presidential election conducted on 25th February 2023.”

On why it returned Tinubu as the winner, INEC said the APC candidate (listed as the second respondent in the petition) “scored 25 per cent of the valid votes cast in 29 states of the federation.”

It added: “Having scored at least one-quarter of the valid votes cast in 29 states, which is over and above the 24 2/3 states threshold required by the Constitution, in addition to scoring the majority of the lawful votes cast at the election, the second respondent was properly declared the winner and returned as the President-elect of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

The second respondent, having scored 25 per cent of the valid votes cast in the 29 states, has satisfied the requirement of the Constitution to be declared winner of the presidential election, thus rendering the requirement of having 25 per cent of the valid votes cast in the FCT unnecessary.

The declaration and return of the second respondent were not wrongful and was made in accordance with the provisions of Section 134 (2) (b) of the Constitution, the second respondent having scored one quarter (25 per cent) of the valid votes cast in 29 states which are beyond the constitutional threshold for such declaration.

The first respondent (INEC) denies that scoring 25 per cent of the votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory is a condition precedent to the declaration and return of a candidate in the presidential election.”

It denied it did not act hastily going by the margin of lead, as claimed by Atiku and the PDP in declaring Tinubu the winner.

Source: The Sun