BVAS, IReV require stronger legal backing for poll credibility — Ubani, SAN

Dr. Monday Ubani, SAN, is the Chairman of Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, Electoral Reform Committee.  In this interrogation with Vanguard Law and Human Rights, helium highlights vague provisions connected physics transmission of results, the dense evidentiary load connected petitioners, and the misuse of “substantial compliance,” successful the Electoral Act.

The erstwhile NBA 2nd Vice President insists amongst different things that  BVAS and IReV information indispensable beryllium fixed conclusive ineligible weight, penalties for breaches strengthened, and evidentiary rules simplified, informing that without reform, Nigeria’s ideology volition stay susceptible to flawed elections.

Excerpts:

By Henry Ojelu

Sir, galore lawyers reason that vague provisions successful the Electoral Act — particularly astir physics transmission of results — person led to inconsistent tribunal judgments. From your committee’s findings, which sections request the astir urgent clarification, and however should the instrumentality beryllium redrafted to destruct these ambiguities?

The Electoral Act has so near immoderate areas vague, peculiarly connected the physics transmission of results. Section 60 and 62 are bully examples, arsenic they neglect to intelligibly specify the hierarchy betwixt manual collation and physics transmission. This ambiguity has led to contradictory tribunal rulings. Our committee of the NBA Electoral Reform Committee recommended that the Act beryllium redrafted to expressly authorities that electronically transmitted results signifier the superior root of authentication, portion manual collation lone serves arsenic a backup successful cases of proven technological failure. Clarity successful drafting eliminates country for judicial guesswork and inconsistent judgments.

Critics accidental petitioners look an astir intolerable task successful proving non-compliance, arsenic they indispensable tender aggregate documents and inactive beryllium that irregularities affected the outcome. Do you judge the existent evidentiary modular nether Section 135(1) is fair? What equilibrium should beryllium struck betwixt protecting predetermination integrity and avoiding frivolous petitions?

Section 135(1) sets a precise precocious threshold: petitioners indispensable beryllium not conscionable non-compliance but besides that it substantially affected the result. In practice, this creates a near-impossible evidentiary burden, particularly successful a state with implicit 170,000 polling units. While the modular is meant to discourage frivolous petitions, it has go a shield for electoral malpractice. I judge the instrumentality indispensable beryllium recalibrated to trim the load wherever determination is clear, demonstrable non-compliance. In specified cases, the onus should displacement to INEC to amusement that irregularities did not impact the wide result. That equilibrium protects some electoral integrity and the sanctity of the vote.

A recurring statement is whether INEC guidelines and manuals transportation the unit of law. Some tribunals downplay their value due to the fact that they are not successful the main Act. Should the National Assembly elevate cardinal INEC regulations into the Electoral Act itself, oregon bash you spot risks successful over-legislating administrative procedures?

The recurring statement is valid. At present, INEC guidelines deficiency the aforesaid unit arsenic the main Act, yet they modulate captious aspects of elections. My presumption is that halfway elements, specified arsenic accreditation, transmission of results, and collation procedures should beryllium incorporated into the Electoral Act itself. However, we indispensable debar over-legislating each administrative detail, which could marque the instrumentality excessively rigid. The champion attack is to enshrine the essentials successful the Act, portion leaving operational flexibility to INEC via subsidiary legislation.

BVAS and IReV were hailed arsenic game-changers, yet their usage successful tribunal arsenic credible grounds has been inconsistent. From the NBA’s betterment perspective, however tin the Electoral Act beryllium amended to guarantee that information from these devices is treated arsenic conclusive impervious successful disputes, without method bottlenecks?

Technology has been some a blessing and a frustration. BVAS and IReV were meant to heighten transparency, yet courts person struggled with their evidentiary value. To debar aboriginal uncertainty, the Electoral Act should beryllium amended to admit information from these devices arsenic prima facie grounds of the volition of t...