Why Politicians Prefer Election Tribunal to Electronic Voting -Braithwaite

Onikepo Braithwaite reveals the reasons politicians prefer Election Tribunal to Electronic Voting in Nigeria.

Greetings from the metropolitan garden city of Port Harcourt, well at the time of writing this piece anyway. I came to attend the 4th Memorial Emmanuel Chinwenwo Aguma, SAN, KSC Lecture/Public Discussion (he is the immediate past Attorney-General of Rivers State, who joined the saints triumphant on August 10, 2018 – May his soul continue to rest in the bosom of the Lord. Amen). The event took place at the NBA House, Port Harcourt. As we drove from the airport to town, the road looked familiar, but, somehow looked different. It then dawned on me that, since I visited Port Harcourt last year, the road had been widened and upgraded. And, when we arrived at G.R.A., I could barely recognise the place. Every road we passed through had also been newly done, complete with pavements and drainage. This is the kind of development that Nigerians yearn for in every part of every State, throughout the country – infrastructural development.

A Brief Summary of the Lecture

The theme of the Lecture was very topical and apt -” Implication of Electronic Transmission of Results on Election Petitions”; and yours truly, my humble self, played the role of Moderator for the two very able Panel Discussants, Hon.

Justice Frank Onyiri of the Customary Court of Appeal, Rivers State, who has served as a member of the National and State Houses of Assembly Election Petition Tribunal, Oyo State in 2019, and is currently serving as the Chairman, Local Government Election Appeal Tribunal, Rivers State; and Mr Dike Udenna Okoronkwo, aka Dike Udenna, a legal practitioner and Head of Chambers of Bridgestone Law Attorneys, based in Port Harcourt.

As the Moderator, I introduced the famous Section 52(2) of the Electoral Act 2010 (EA), and gave a brief overview of its history, from the outright prohibition of electronic voting machines in the 2010 version to the 2015 amendment which permitted voting to be done in accordance with the procedure determined by INEC. I submitted that though it was not explicitly stated, as the law presently stands, the use of electronic voting machines, or electronic voting or electronic transmission of results or manual voting, are all methods which can be determined and employed by INEC to conduct elections, and there is absolutely nothing preventing INEC from transmitting results electronically. Come to think of it, it is the Senate that is actually trying to drag INEC back to the dark ages and frustrate the progress of the voting system, by unconstitutionally insisting that the latter seeks its approval and that of the NCC, before being permitted to transmit election results electronically. Assuming that it was even constitutional to seek approval from a third party (which it definitely is not), I even wonder what gives the Senate the wherewithal to be the ones to approve electronic transmission of results? Are they engineering experts?

Hon. Justice Onyiri

It was sad to see that there is a consensus that Nigeria is seriously deficient in infrastructure, and Justice Onyiri began his discussion by stating this fact. However, I submit that there is still ample time before 2023, for NCC and the various networks to correct any transmission issues, if they are truly lacking (though INEC has rebutted this claim).
Justice Onyiri then remarked that the whole electoral process should be electronic, and not just a part of it. He was of the opinion that you cannot have manual backup processes, that is, that inputs cannot be manual and then transmission of results, electronic. That holistically, the process must be digital, as the input into the system obviously bears on the output – certainly if it is garbage in, it will definitely be garbage out!

On the issue of the Senate attempting to foist itself and NCC into the election process, when Section 78 of the Constitution is quite clear on the role of INEC, Justice Onyiri concluded that all that is required, is for INEC to conform to the NCC standard; that INEC certainly did not need NCC’s permission or that of the Senate, to go ahead with electronic transmission of results. As for the Senate, Justice Onyiri submitted that all that is required of them, is to put in place a good legislative framework, instead of trying to sneak themselves into the process.

Dike Udenna

Dike Udenna spoke from an extremely practical point of view, as a counsel who has handled several election petitions. He made some interesting submissions. He started off on the premise that the odds are stacked against a Petitioner in an election petition, because there is a presumption and policy of the EA, that an election is properly conducted by INEC, until such presumption is rebutted by the Petitioner. He submitted that electronic transmission of results would more than go a long way, to not only to affirm the integrity of an election, but reduce the hitherto almost insurmountable burden on the Petitioner, of having to prove the Petition, for several reasons; including the fact that, because Petitioners are given a very limited amount of time to examine their witnesses (10-14 days or so; one court day obviously not being the full 24 hours, but maybe 2-4 hours), and the number of witnesses sometimes running into over a hundred, since usually, witnesses must come from every polling unit that is said to have had a problem, as well as also presenting polling agents to testify; it is almost an impossible task for Petitioners to prove their cases within the appointed time, and invariably, the Tribunal will rule that the Petitioner has failed to discharge the requisite evidential burden to prove their petitions, the Petition automatically fails. He submitted that, the electronic transmission of results would assist in no small measure, to make an election petition a more level playing field for both the Petitioner and Respondent, as the results would have been uploaded electronically from source, without the need for hundreds of witnesses to come and testify, thereby making the case possibly more clear cut, and giving the Petitioner a better chance, if indeed, such Petitioner has a strong case.

Dike Udenna talked about how results were changed during their manual transmission, from the polling unit to the INEC Collation Centre. How Petitioners, who by virtue of the results declared at the polling units, had won elections, but by the time there is a proper declaration of results by the Returning Officer, to the chagrin of the Petitioner, the figures magically change and the opponent who lost the election is declared the winner; and because of some of the aforementioned obstacles which exist in proving the election petition, the opponent who was the loser in the election, is sworn in as the winner. He submitted that, the practice of unscrupulously changing results between the polling unit and the final declaration, would be greatly reduced if the results are electronically transmitted, especially in the case of transmitting results from distant or inaccessible places like riverine areas, back to town.

Several other issues were raised, like that of INEC officials being made to declare the wrong results under duress. Dike Udenna gave the example of a Returning Officer who complained that he was forced to sign a false result sheet, but was too afraid to come and give evidence at the Tribunal because he felt that his life and that of his family would be in danger if he did so – that those who could threaten and force him to sign a fake document, would be able to locate his home easily and deal with him (and his family) decisively if he testified against them. This resulted in the Tribunal attaching absolutely no weight to the result sheet since the maker of the document did not testify before it. The electronically transmitted results would undoubtedly come in extremely handy in these types of situations, as the transmitted results not only speak for themselves but would corroborate as true or denounce as false, the figures in result sheets.

The example used by Dike Udenna, immediately brought to mind the case of Senator Rochas Okorocha’s election in Imo State, in which the Returning Officer had revealed that he had been kidnapped and forced to declare Rochas Okorocha as the winner of the election. Shockingly, Senator Okorocha was still given his certificate of return, and is happily sitting in the Senate Chamber as the duly elected Senator representing his constituency!

Dike Udenna also commented on the deployment of electronic transmission of results, to rule out the incidence of non-INEC parties like the Police, submitting election results as evidence to the Election Petition Tribunals, as again, in the case of the Imo State Gubernatorial election, where the results tendered by the Police to the Tribunal, was what was used to jet the candidate who came fourth in the election, Senator Hope Uzodinma, to the position of the winner. Again, in the event that the Police tendered conflicting results (I still have questions as to whether the Police is the proper party to tender election results), the electronically transmitted results would be a means to ascertain the veracity of those other results so tendered.

Conclusion

All in all, those of us who were in attendance at the Lecture, left with a better understanding of why Politicians, especially those already sitting in elective positions, are opposed to the electronic transmission of results, and why they are happy to take their chances at the Election Petition Tribunal and Court as Respondents. Apart from it being easier for Politicians to rig elections if the voting system is manual, our Election Petition system seems to favour Respondents – almost a win-win situation for them.

What then, is the difference between our National Assembly (NASS) members and a military dictatorship, in terms of both of them trying to perpetuate themselves in their positions? None. It is only the method that differs. While the military employs sheer brute force to remain in government, our NASS members are doing so by manipulating the laws to suit their purpose, while trying to introduce useless Bills to gag those who complain about their unholy activities.

On my way to the airport after the programme, I visited the site of the Nigerian Law School, Rivers State Campus – the Dr Nabo Graham-Douglas, SAN Complex on Abacha Road by Agip junction and Ikwerre Road; and also the site for the Law School Staff Quarters by Presidential Hotel, G.R.A. I also visited the Emmanuel Chinwenwo Aguma Judges’ Quarters, in honour of the late Attorney-General on Tombia Extension, erected by the Rivers State Government. The Estate is quite picturesque – there are at least 20 duplexes in the Estate with well-manicured lawns, complete with tennis and basketball courts, and other modern conveniences. Judges who opted for cash payments in lieu of the accommodation were given N150 million each. I am pleased that Judges in Rivers State, are being appreciated and taken care of. I hope other states will take a cue from Lagos and Rivers State, and do the same for their Judges.

P.S.
What a Country!

Resident Doctors are paid N5,000 a month hazard allowance, and a significant number of Doctors did die last year due to the Covid-19 hazard. Yet, Senators and Members of the House of Representatives are paid N303,960 and N297,781 monthly or thereabouts, for their Newspaper allowance. It seems that, in Nigeria, Legislators reading the ‘Dailies’ and keeping up with current affairs, is more important than the lives of Doctors and their role as lifesavers! (Even though the effect of their avid newspaper reading, with the will of the people clearly contained in those newspapers, is not necessarily their priority or reflected in their law-making). And, indirectly, Legislators reading newspapers also seems more important to the Nigerian Government than the lives of Nigerians, because when there is a strike, those with urgent medical needs run the risk of death, if they don’t receive the much-needed attention and treatment. A senseless and grossly inequitable system, that needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. Food for thought!