Some legal points reached in Oyetola & Ors. v. INEC & Ors. (2023)

-

Some legal points reached in Oyetola & Ors. v. INEC & Ors. (2023)

by Branham Chima (SAL). 


───

The Presiding Officer of a polling unit is not mandated to upload the result to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) database?

Having read the decision of the Supreme Court in Oyetola & Ors. v. INEC & Ors. (2023) with suit number SC/CV/508/2023 delivered on Tuesday the 9th day of May 2023 affirming the election of Governor Adeleke of Osun State, here is my compilation of some points reached by the Apex Court -

👨🏿⚖️ REGISTER OF VOTERS, BVAS, FORM EC8A, ARE THE REQUIRED EVIDENCE TO PROVE THERE WAS VOTING WITHOUT ACCREDITATION -

“It is glaring from the above reproduced provisions of the Electoral Act and the INEC Regulations and Guidelines that the evidence required to prove that voting was allowed without accreditation or that there was improper accreditation are the Register of Voters, BVAS and the Polling Unit result in Form EC8A and that the evidence required to prove that there was over voting are the record of accredited voters in the BVAS and the Polling Unit result in Form EC8A.” — E.A. Agim, JSC.

👨🏿⚖️ THE PRESIDING OFFICER OF A POLLING UNIT IS NOT MANDATED TO UPLOAD RESULT TO INEC DATABASE -

“There is no part of the Electoral Act or the INEC Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of Elections 2022 that requires that the Presiding Officer of the election in a Polling unit transmit the particulars or number of accredited voters recorded by the BVAS to the INEC data base or anywhere. This is obvious from all the provisions reproduced above. Equally, there is no part of the Electoral Act and INEC Regulations and Guidelines that require that election result of a polling unit should on the spot during the poll be transmitted to the INEC National Election Register or data base. Rather, the Regulations provide for the BVAS to be used to scan the completed result in Form EC8A and transmit or upload the scanned copy of the polling unit result to the Collation System and INEC Result viewing Portal (IReV).” — E.A. Agim, JSC.

👨🏿⚖️ DISTINCTION AMONG INEC COLLATION SYSTEM, THE INEC RESULT VIEWING PORTAL, AND THE NATIONAL ELECTRONIC REGISTER OF ELECTION RESULTS -

“As their names depict, the Collation System and the INEC Result Viewing Portal are part of the election process and play particular roles in that process. The Collation System is made of the centres where results are collated at various stages of the election. So the polling units results transmitted to the collation system provides the relevant collation officer the means to verify a polling unit result as the need arises for the purpose of collation. The results transmitted to the Result Viewing Portal is to give the public at large the opportunity to view the polling unit results on the election day. It is clear from the provisions of Regulation 38(i) and (ii) that the Collation System and Result Viewing Portal are different from the National Electronic Register of Election Results. The Collation System and Result Viewing Portal are operational during the election as part of the process, the National Electronic Register of Election Results is a post election record and is not part of the election process.” — E.A. Agim, JSC.

👨🏿⚖️ PW1 (WHO DID THE EXPERT ANALYSIS REPORT) IS A WITNESS INTERESTED AND HIS EXPERT ANALYSIS WAS MADE LIS PENDENS AND THUS NOT INDEPENDENT -

“The other evidence adduced by the appellants to prove their case is the Expert Analysis Report prepared by PW1, who by his own admission is a member of the 2nd appellant and had been a Special Assistant to the 1st Appellant and was engaged by the appellants to establish the invalidity of the disputed results in Form EC8A for the 744 polling units. He testified further that "I made the report as directed by the Petitioners" and that “ I am part of those who wrote the petition." By his own testimony, he established that he was not an independent expert as he had an interest in the subject of his analysis and carried out the analysis from the conclusion that the results were invalid, to justify that conclusion to support the contemplated election petition. It was an analysis from an answer and not from a question. Such a report is not the product of an independent, impartial, detached and professional analysis. He is clearly a person with the disposition or temptation to depart from the truth. In Anyaebosi V V.R.T, Briscoe (Nig) Ltd (Supra), this court held that the likelihood that the maker of a report is tainted by the incentive to conceal or misrepresent facts, renders him a person interested. The listing of the Expert Analysis Report in the petition among the documents to be relied on to prove the petition show it was made in anticipation or contemplation of the petition to be filed. The report having been made by PW1 as a person interested in the subject matter of the report when the petition was anticipated to establish that the election result was invalid is not admissible evidence by virtue of Section 83(3) of the Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended) which provides as follows: ‘Nothing in this Section shall render admissible as evidence any statement made by a person interested at a time when proceedings were pending or anticipated involving a dispute as to any fact which the statement might tend to establish.’” — E.A. Agim, JSC. 

Comments

Post a Comment

What are your thoughts?

Popular posts from this blog

WHEN IS AN APPEAL DEEMED ENTERED AT THE COURT OF APPEAL?

-
WHEN IS AN APPEAL DEEMED ENTERED AT THE COURT OF APPEAL? by Branham Chima. Subscribe: https://branhamchima.substack.com/embed An appeal is considered to be officially submitted to the Court of Appeal when the records of the previous court’s proceedings are received by the Court of Appeal. Once an appeal has been submitted and until it is finally resolved, the Court of Appeal will have control over the entire case between the involved parties. Unless stated otherwise in the Rules, all applications related to the case must be made to the Court of Appeal and not to the original trial Court. However, it is possible to file an application in the trial Court for it to be transferred to the Court of Appeal. The above position was encapsulated in the National Industrial Court case of Ayangbade v. UBA (NICN/YL/05M/2020, 9th February 2021) per Kado J. thus: ‘the counsel for the judgment creditor/respondent has also contended that no appeal has been entered before the court of appeal. Let m...
Read more

WHETHER CONFLICTING FACTS CAN BE PLEADED WHERE ALTERNATIVE RELIEFS ARE SOUGHT?

-
WHETHER CONFLICTING FACTS CAN BE PLEADED WHERE ALTERNATIVE RELIEFS ARE SOUGHT?  by Branham Chima.  ✓ DEFINITION(S):  • Conflicting facts: refer to contradictory or opposing pieces of information or evidence that are presented. It occurs when different sources, perspectives, or accounts provide inconsistent or conflicting details about a specific matter or issue.  • Pleaded: When a person pleads, they are presenting their case or defense to the court, either admitting or denying the allegations against them. The plea can be made orally or in writing, depending on the jurisdiction and the specific circumstances of the legal proceedings. The term "pleaded" is commonly used to describe the past action of making a plea.  • Alternative reliefs: refer to different forms of remedies or outcomes that a party seeks in a legal proceeding as alternatives to each other. By seeking alternative reliefs, a party acknowledges that there may be multiple ways to address their conc...
Read more

OBITER DICTA OF THE ULTIMATE COURT ON IMPORTANT POINTS ARE BINDING ON LOWER COURT

-
OBITER DICTA OF THE ULTIMATE COURT ON IMPORTANT POINTS ARE BINDING ON LOWER COURT by Branham Chima.  Subscribe: https://branhamchima.substack.com/embed  Obiter dictum, or incidental remarks by a judge that are not binding, play an important role in legal opinions. Generally, lower courts are not obligated to follow obiter dictum. However, there is an exception: when the ultimate court makes an obiter dictum on an important point of law, it becomes binding and must be followed by all lower courts. This exception ensures consistency and uniformity in the interpretation and application of the law across the judicial hierarchy.  This position was affirmed in the case of Bennett Ifediorah & Ors. V. Ben Ume & Ors. (1988) per Nnaemeka-Agu JSC thus: ‘Although this opinion was given in a criminal appeal, it has been followed and applied by the Court of Appeal in many civil appeals against interlocutory decisions. See for an example Akinsola Dawodu & Anor. v. F. O. Olo...
Read more