An action brought by the Labour Party (LP) to force the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to use electronic means of communicating the results of the 2023 elections was dismissed by a Federal High Court in Abuja.
According to Judge Emeka Nwite’s ruling, Section 52(2) of the Electoral Act of 2022—cited by Monday Mawah, the party’s attorney—provided for voting and the transmission of results in line with a process that would be decided by INEC.
He interprets this to mean that the commission is free to specify or pick the method of disseminating election results.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) received a copy of the ruling issued by Judge Nwite on January 23, before the presidential and National Assembly elections occurred on February 25.
The LP sued INEC as a single respondent by filing the original summons, designated FHC/ABJ/CS/1454/2022, on August 22, 2022, through its attorney.
The party asked the court to decide if the commission can still insist on manual collation of results in the general elections given the effect of sections 47 (2), 50 (2), 60(4), 60(5), and 62 (1)(2) and other relevant parts of the Election Act 2022.
In the event that the issue was decided in its favour, the LP requested two injunctive reliefs.
They include “a declaration that the respondent has no power to opt for a manual method other than the electronic method provided for by the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022,” and a court order requiring INEC to abide by the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022, regarding the electronic transmission of election results in the general elections.
READ ALSO: Appeals court grants INEC’s plea to modify the BVAS
However, INEC did not reply to the lawsuit or submit any paperwork.
Mawah argued that because manual collation of results was not covered by the Election Act of 2022, it must be rejected or denied by the court in light of the law’s provisions.
“It is a well-known legal maxim that the court’s sole duty is to interpret the law,” Judge Nwite remarked in delivering the ruling.
The court “is enjoined to interpret the status quo without straying outside of them to bring in what the court would consider was intended” when interpreting the statute.
He asserts that the court’s tasks and responsibilities in the interpretation of a statute include giving the statute’s explicit and unambiguous language meaning and force.
The Election Act of 2022’s Sections 50(2), 60(5), and 62(2) were the points of contention, the judge concluded after hearing the plaintiff’s attorney’s argument.
He stated: “The Electoral Act of 2022’s provision of Section 60(5), as described above, has provided for the transmission of election results, including the entire number of accredited voters from the polling unit.
On the other hand, Section 62(2) calls for the creation, upkeep, and ongoing updating of the register of election results, which serves as a separate database for all polling unit results as tallied in all elections performed by the commission.
According to the aforementioned Section 62(2), the commission must maintain an electronic record of election results at its national headquarters.
“Now, a careful reading of Section 50(2) has made it clear that voting and the transmission of results must be done in accordance with the method that the commission will decide.”
This means that the commission is free to impose or pick a particular method for disseminating election results.
