A Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a Labour Party (LP) complaint seeking to compel the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to use electronic means of sending election results in 2023.
In a judgment, Judge Emeka Nwite concluded that Section 52 (2) of the Electoral Act, 2022, referenced by the party’s counsel, Monday Mawah, allows for voting and transmission of results in the manner to be decided by INEC.
This means, according to him, that the commission is free to dictate or choose how election results are communicated.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) got a copy of the ruling handed by Judge Nwite on January 23, prior to the presidential and National Assembly elections on February 25.
The LP had filed the originating summons, designated FHC/ABJ/CS/1454/2022, through its lawyer on August 22, 2022, to sue INEC as a solitary respondent.
The party sought the court to rule on whether the commission can continue to insist on the manual collation of results elections under the combined effect of sections 47 (2), 50 (2), 60 (4), 60 (5), and 62 (1) (2) of the Election Act 2022, as well as other relevant legislation.
If the question was decided in its favor, the LP sought two injunctive reliefs.
These 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 an order compelling INEC to comply with the Electoral Act 2022 on electronic transmission of results in the general elections.
INEC did not respond or file any process in the suit.
Mawah said in his argument that, considering the law’s provisions, manual collation of results was unfamiliar to the Election Act 2022 and hence must be rejected or denied by the court.
“It is clearly a trite law that the duty of the court is nothing more than interpreting the law,” Judge Nwite remarked in his decision.
“In interpreting the law, the court must interpret the facts as they are without deviating from what the court believes was intended.”
According to him, the functions, roles, and duties of the court in interpreting a statute are to give meaning and effect to clear and unambiguous words of the statute.
The judge said from the argument of the plaintiff’s counsel, the bone of contention or the sections that they sought interpretation for were Sections 50 (2) 60 (5), and 62 (2) of the Electoral Act, 2022.
According to him: “The provision of Section 60 (5) of the Electoral Act, 2022, as cited above has provided for transferring election results including the total number of the accredited voters from the polling unit.”
“Section 62 (2) 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.”
“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) has provided for voting and transmission of results to be done under the procedure to be determined by the commission.”
“That the commission is at liberty to prescribe or choose the manner in which election results shall be transmitted.”
