Tech I On Forensic Scrutiny Of The Polls

By Fred Nwaozor

The last time I checked, the scheduled Nigeria’s 2019 Presidential polls have eventually come and gone, to the glory of God who made the all-inclusive national ritual possible.
Though the historic and remarkable event had been successfully conducted by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the ripples and mixed feelings created by its outcome still conspicuously linger.
The news is everywhere that Presdient Muhammadu Buhari of the All Progressives Congress (APC) was returned elected by the INEC as the next President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria for another period of four years.
In a related development, the news is equally at all corners of the country and beyond that the closest rival to the recognized victor of the poll, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) has alongside his party leadership refused to accept the outcome of the keenly contested election, citing irregularities at the polls, despite the strong plea from some quarters to concede defeat in good faith.
According to the aggrieved candidate, he was robbed of his presumed victory, thus vowed to “retrieve the mandate” through the court, which is widely believed to be the “last hope of a common man”.
Naturally, it’s common among the human race that when a victor or the second to none in a certain competition emerges, the second best would invariably feel bitter and may end up putting the blame of his/their failure on the umpire.
Such a feeling is natural, in the sense that nobody or competitor wishes to become a loser at the end of any contest, hence that of the PDP isn’t an exception. It’s indisputable that every participant or contestant in any competition definitely looks forward to grabbing the trophy at the end of the show.
In this case, the PDP who has been publicly declared as the best loser is strongly of the view that it deserved to emerge victoriously or as the winner, at the Presidential poll that was reportedly observed by both local and foreign observers.
It’s not anymore news that the aggrieved party has lawfully approached the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal, as was clamoured by its teeming allies as well as followers who share same sentiments with the party’s leadership.
We were equally reliably notified that the plaintiff, who had made a plaintive sound, pleaded with the court for a forensic investigation to be carried out on the sensitive materials used for the said election, in addition to its prayer for the INEC to reverse the declaration in favour of the PDP.
On 6th March 2019, the tribunal consequently rejected the request of the candidate of the PDP, alongside his party, to be allowed to conduct forensic analysis and scanning of the electronic gadgets – such as the computers, card readers and servers, among others – deployed for the conduct of the February 23 Presidential election.
The tribunal declared that such a request was beyond the scope of the provisions of Section 151 (1) and (2) of the Nigeria’s 2010 Electoral Act, as amended, which permits the inspection of election materials coupled with allied documents upon the request of any concerned individual or entity.
In a unanimous ruling on an ex-parte application tendered by the PDP, a 3-man panel of the tribunal stated “Section 151 of the Electoral Act, which allows an intending petitioner to inspect materials used for an election, only allows inspection and obtaining of certified true copies of such materials” and nothing more.
In the lead ruling by Justice Abdul Aboki, who led the panel, the tribunal granted the prayers that allow the applicant the permission to only inspect the materials and obtain their Certified True Copies (CTC). It also granted the applicant’s prayer for leave to be allowed to bring such application at the pre-hearing stage of the tribunal’s sitting.
It reiterated that the request by Atiku and PDP to call experts to engage in forensic analysis and scanning of INEC gadgets, among other materials, was outside the scope of the meaning of inspection under the aforementioned section of the Electoral Act.
It’s noteworthy that the section in question, which talks about inspection of documents, stipulates as follow:
“151 (1) An order for an inspection of a polling document or an inspection of a document or any other packet in the custody of the Chief National Electoral Commissioner or any other officer of the Commission may be made by the election tribunal or the court if it is satisfied that the inspection is required for the purpose of instituting, maintaining or defending an election petition.
“(2) A document other than a document referred to in subsection (1) of this section relating to an election and which is retained by the Chief National Electoral Commissioner or any other officer of the Commission in accordance with this section shall be open for inspection on an order made by the Election Tribunal or a Court in exercise of its powers to compel the production of documents in legal proceedings, but shall not otherwise be open for inspection.”
Since the section is obviously silent regarding forensic inspection or investigation, and doesn’t also stipulate whether only manual pattern should be deployed, it’s therefore the statutory obligation of the court to determine the apt line of action prior to amendments in respect of that.
As I appreciate the tribunal for exercising its lawful duties without bias, it’s equally pertinent for the relevant authorities to henceforth consider some key issues for the sake of effectiveness and efficiency as well as way forward in electoral matters.
As a tech expert and activist, I’ve overtime analyzed and advocated on the need for the Nigeria’s political system to join the rest of others globally as regards technology, particularly matters pertaining to elections.
Nigeria is arguably of age to follow suit concerning the issue at hand. The required brains or hands are readily available to initiate the project. But the acclaimed giant of Africa is unequivocally still lacking the enabling environment to strive.
The fact, irrespective of who is aggrieved or victorious, is that forensic audit or means of inspection into matters of public interest enables apt and timely outcome, and equally saves cost. It’s, therefore, cost and labour effective. It creates room for the needed work to be done with ease or effortlessly.
So, considering electioneering issues, it would be wise and ideal for Nigeria to key into such a tech-driven initiative in order to share the numerous benefits enshrined in it. Involving forensic measures in pre, during and post election matters would undoubtedly write the country’s name in gold in regard to her political system and democracy in general.
In view of this professional counsel, the INEC is expected to hold the bull by the horn with a view to thinking towards making all activities or cases pertaining to elections tech-driven. Four years from now, prior to the next general elections, is enough space and opportunity to plan aptly ahead of the awaited lofty approach.
However, such a measure wouldn’t be effective or lawfully acceptable by the system if the relevant laws aren’t amended to suit the quest. Hence, the lawmakers shouldn’t hesitate in doing the needful without much ado.
The recently reviewed Electoral Act, that’s yet to be assented to by the Presidency, ought to therefore be further reviewed to accommodate all the required parameters regarding forensic measures. The time to act is now. Think about it!

Comrade Nwaozor, a Policy Analyst, Rights Activist
& Tech Expert, is National Coordinator, Right Thinkers Movement
___________________________________
frednwaozor@gmail.com