PDP presidential candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar
People who think the presidential candidate of the People Democratic Party, PDP, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar has no evidence to back up his claim that he won the 2019 presidential election, may have a rethink, as no fewer than twelve people who claimed they were deployed as electoral officers by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for have admitted under oath that they transmitted results electronically.
A question about whether or not results were forwarded to a central database of the commission has been amongst the top grounds for contesting the presidential election results by Atiku Abubakar and his opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
Atiku was the main challenger to President Muhammadu Buhari was candidate of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) at the February 23 elections.
On February 27, the electoral umpire declared Mr Buhari winner of the elections, and issued him a certificate of return for a second four-year term starting May 29.
Atiku and his party, the PDP challenged the results at the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal last month, saying he won the election and was in possession of evidence that would upturn the declared outcome.
Atiku’s legal team submitted a different result to the tribunal, which showed the former vice-president as the winner of the election. The result showed Atiku had scored 18,356,732 votes to defeat Buhari, whom they said received 16,741,430 votes.
This contradicted the results declared by INEC, which said Buhari received 15,191,847 votes against Atiku’s 11,262,978 votes.
Atiku’s lawyers said the results were released by an INEC whistleblower who had access to the commission’s internal server and other tools throughout the election.
They also provided unique identification information of computers that they said belonged to INEC, which they expected experts from Microsoft, IBM and Oracle to corroborate.
However, in its initial response to Atiku’s petition, INEC strongly denied operating a server during the election, saying such activities were not permitted by the electoral law. The commission accused Atiku of circulating fake results for the purpose of his petition.
Buhari and his ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) also sided with the electoral umpire and alleged criminal interception of a public institution’s communication by Atiku and the PDP.
In a response to INEC’s denial of the server and its purported result, Atiku’s legal team attached affidavits from 12 persons they said worked for INEC.
The persons, according to the affidavits, said they worked as presiding officers and assistant presiding officers in Borno and Yobe. They were only identified in the documents by their initials, but a source close to Atiku said the witnesses will ultimately identify themselves in court.
The witnesses comprise seven presiding officers and five assistant presiding officers. They were six each from Borno and Yobe, and swore they were adequately recruited and trained by the commission ahead of the election.
“We
were specifically instructed that the use of the smart card reader
for accreditation, verification, authentication, collation
and
transmission of results is mandatory and that any election conducted
without the use of the smart card reader would be invalid.
“I took part in the conduct of the Presidential and National Assembly (Senate and House of Representatives) elections…where I served as the presiding officer (PO) and I ensured the use of the smart card reader for accreditation, verification, authentication, collation and transmission of votes in my polling unit.
“At the end of voting, the information on the smart card reader, the results inclusive were collated by me in the presence of the party agents and other ad-hoc staff of the 1st respondent after which my assistant presiding officer (AP0-1) transmitted the result electronically in my presence to INEC’s server using the smart card reader and the code provided by the commission,” a typical testimony from one of the witnesses read.
The wording of the affidavits was identical. Assistant presiding officers also swore they sent the results to a designated INEC server.
