UPDATE: Labour Party, Peter Obi Accuse INEC Of Electoral Fraud

UPDATE: Labour Party, Peter Obi Accuse INEC Of Electoral Fraud

by Victor Ndubuisi

The Labour Party’s (LP) Presidential Candidate, Peter Obi, has stated that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is turning a blind eye to electoral fraud and wasting the country’s resources.

Obi and the Labour Party declared in their last declaration presented to the Presidential Election Petitions Court on July 23, 2023, that if the court does not hold INEC accountable for conducting elections fairly and independently, elections in Nigeria will continue to be tainted.

The Labour Party and Obi both chastised INEC for failing to carry out its primary responsibility of overseeing elections properly and instead favoring specific candidates in the elections it held.

Presidential Tribunal: Peter Obi Presents More Evidence Against Tinubu

They noted out that INEC spent a significant portion of its address supporting the qualifications of the second respondent (Tinubu).


In an earlier case, Alechenu (2019) LPELR-49199 (CA), they condemned INEC for frequently obstructing access to electoral materials, even when ordered to produce them by the court. Obi and the LP accused INEC of favoring the announced winner in order to stymie the petition.

Furthermore, Obi stated that the Electoral Act of 2022, the INEC Regulations and Guidelines, and the INEC Manual require INEC to deploy current technology in the conduct of the 2023 General Election.

The final address reads, “By this, INEC represented and assured that it would use Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) for the accreditation of voters in the polling units and the upload/transmission of the results of the election in real-time on the day of the election to the INEC Result Viewing Portal (IReV).

2023: APC Retracts, Expresses Full Support For BVAS, IReV

“However, contrary to the requirement of the law and in manifest disregard of its own representations, the 1st respondent (INEC) abandoned and discarded the much-expected upload/transmission of the result of the election in real time on the day of the election from the polling unit to the IReV.

“Rather, and very strangely, blurred, unreadable and inaccessible documents/images were uploaded by the 1st respondent to the IReV purporting same to be the result of the election in various polling units. These blurred images and inaccessible documents were purported to be the result of the election in the polling units. The net result of the upload of the blurred images on the IReV was that the result of the election could neither be authenticated nor verified, and thus, lacked credibility and transparency.

“The 1st respondent’s contention that the ‘collation of the election result’ remained a manual process is patently false and seems to have disregarded the express provisions of the Electoral Act, Regulations and Manual for the election. Collation of election results at all the stages of the election process specifically provide for electronic transmission to the IReV which is part of the collation system under the Electoral Act.


INEC Uploads 83% Of Election Results – IReV

“The authority of the Federal High Court determination in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/1454/2022 relied upon by the 1st respondent in its final address and heavily harped upon in its argument is per incuriam and in manifest contradiction of the binding later decision of the Supreme Court in Appeal No: SC/CV/508/2023, OYETOLA v. INEC delivered on 9th May 2023, in (2023) LPELR-60392 (SC).

“Despite the 1st respondent’s claim that the hardcopies of the forms EC8A were allegedly used for the manual collation of the election (which by that reasoning ought to be in the 1st respondent’s custody/possession), the 1 respondent nevertheless gave to the petitioners as certified copies of the electoral forms, including alleged forms EC8As, blurred/blank/extraneous copies.


“The alleged hardcopies of the forms EC8A claimed to have been used for the manual collation were neither produced in court nor certified copies thereof tendered in court by the 1st respondent.”


Follow us on Facebook

Post Disclaimer

The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by the author and forum participants on this website do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of Anaedo Online or official policies of the Anaedo Online.

You may also like