The Supreme Court has
come up with reasons behind its Rivers election verdict that affirmed the
election of Nyesom wike as the validly elected governor of the state
DAILY POST reports
that the crux of the judgment is that the trial tribunal and the lower appeal
court were wrongly swayed by INEC guideline on the use of card readers for the
election.
The court also said
that the trial tribunal denied Wike fair hearing when it was hearing the
petition.
It held that while it
commends INEC for the introduction of card readers, the innovation, however,
cannot supersede the voters register.
The court said that
extant laws of the federation provides for the use of voters register but the
card reader irrespective of its importance does not have a place in any extant
law of the land.
Hence it said that
the tribunal was wrong to base it judgment on noncompliance with the use of
card readers.
It advised INEC to
approach the National Assembly for an amendment to incorporate the use of card
readers in the law of the land.
On the issue of
allegation of violence and hijacking, the court held that Dakuku was not able
to prove beyond reasonable doubt because he failed to bring in witnesses from
all the polling units to substantiate the claims.
The court also held
that for peterside to prove non accreditation, he ought to have tendered the
voters register and then demonstrate it.
The court said that
the voters register could not be jettisoned for the card reader because it has
a place in law while the card reader doesn’t.
The court also held
that the tribunal and the lower court were unduly swayed by INEC’s directive on
card reader usage during the election, adding that it cannot supersede the
voters register.
However, the court
while noting that INEC is empowered to make subsidiary regulations as regards
election, said the regulations must not go contrary to constitutional
provisions.
On the evidence of
INEC staff known as PW40 who described the election as a sham and a mockery of
democracy, the court held that his evidence cannot take the place of voters as
he himself under cross exermination did not say that he personally witnessed
any violence but depended on hearsay.
Finally the court held
that to warrant nullification of an election, a petitioner has to prove that
there was substantial non-compliance in all polling units, adding that they
failed to bring the issue within this parametre.
The court commended
INEC for its innovation of the smart card readers but was quick to add that
validation of voting process through the use of voters register takes precedent
over any other process for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment