Category: Opinion

And finally, Nigerians have gone to the polls and the presidential election has been concluded. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has declared Bola Ahmed Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the President-elect of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Of course, the months ahead are going to be filled with all sorts of legal disputations at the election tribunals over the conduct of the elections and what happened or what should have happened. However, the impending transformation of the Nigerian state through strategic refocusing of policy and strategy on the well-being of longsuffering Nigerians cannot wait for the resolution of the legal disputes before the more urgent task of good governance commences.

The conclusion of the presidential election brings a huge relief for me at a personal level, as would have been obvious from my many op-ed pieces in the last couple of weeks, that signaled my apprehension about what the election implies for the political and socioeconomic fortune of Nigeria and Nigerians beyond 2023. This is my apprehension: Nigeria cannot afford to elect a leader(ship) that will keep up the framework of bad politics which will keep pushing Nigeria beyond the precipice and the backwater of history. And it would seem that Nigerians, given the immense statistics of readiness to enter the electoral space, were also aware of this danger. And this is especially so for the Nigerian youths who have borne the brutal brunt of mal-governance for many years.

And so, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu won the election in a very tight race that threw up so many surprises. The outcries that have greeted the result of the election is characteristic of the many deep fissures and administrative dysfunctions that have characterized the postcolonial Nigerian state. And they are also the result of the persona and personality of the president-elect himself. Apart from the many controversies and deliberate lies that surrounded his political character and status prior to the election, many have wondered about the outcome of the election and this expensive second golden opportunity given to the All-People’s Congress (APC) despite the dismal governance performance of the incumbent administration.

And yet, the final outcome is clear testimony that Tinubu has finally realized his aspiration of becoming the president of Nigeria. And this is where aspiration becomes the foundation of a mandatory responsibility that goes beyond just fulfilling a lifelong desire. At this critical standpoint, we have transcended the level of warning a presidential aspirant of being careful what he wishes for. One could almost feel pity for the one who wears the mantle of being the president of Nigeria in 2023, going forward. Uneasy lies the head! And this is all the more so because President Tinubu inherits an immensely insecure and divided state. He inherits the burden of an administrative and governance frameworks that runs on dysfunctional wheels. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu inherits a Nigerian state in deep crisis of multiple dimensions.

In “The American Crisis,” penned in December 23, 1776, the American statesman Thomas Paine commented, “These are the times that try men’s souls.”  He was referring to the revolutionary fervor that signaled the height of the American Revolution. This was a period when the fate of the nascent American state, and the future of Americans, hung delicately in the balance. The American crisis was generated because Britain taxed the Americans without affording them the freedom of being represented in the British parliament. The American rebelled and the revolutionary war started. In Nigeria, the crisis derives from the uncritical and irresponsible lust for power by the political elite, over the years, and in ways that has brought calamities of different sorts-infrastructural deficit, de-industrialization and a growingly deepening phenomenon Dutch and Double Dutch disease in the oil sector; public service abysmally low capability readiness, anti-intellectualism in the policy space, an institutionalized culture of recycling of ignorance in policy management and an affirmation of the thesis that the fish gets rotten from the head; non-abating culture of planning without statistics; poverty, insecurity, unemployment, heightened Japa syndrome, collapsed national integrity system, fractured federation, degraded reckoning amongst the comity of nations, etc. In other words, for sixty-three years, Nigeria has been cursed with a leadership deficit that longs for power but lacks the governance vision that determines how that political power should be deployed to transform the quality of lives of Nigerians. This is the enormity of the task before the president-elect.     

But Bola Ahmed Tinubu also inherits the potentials to make Nigeria great. By becoming president, he is situated into a space-like every other person in history who had had that position and had succeeded or failed-where he is positioned to make the most of the political power he is entrusted with for good or evil. And he asserts this awareness in his acceptance speech, appropriately titled “The Era of Renewed Hope.” According to him, despite all that characterized the election, and the current state of the Nigerian state, “Let the better aspects of our humanity step forward at this fateful moment.” Contrary to what others might think, I strongly believe Nigeria stands at the threshold of a revolutionary moment, the same place the nascent United States stood in 1776. And I further believe that Asiwaju is historically poised to achieve more than anyone gives him the chance to achieve as president.

And so, we stand at the threshold of history in Nigeria. And this is where Asiwaju Tinubu needs to borrow that fundamental statement that heralded his predecessor’s first coming: “I belong to everybody and I belong to nobody.” This critical statement contains the gem of a governance framework that is key to diversity management in statecraft. Contrary to the acrimonious ethnic and religious rivalries that ruffled the electoral contest that brought him in, and even the scornful and derisive dismissal that attend “Tinubu’s many sins and weaknesses,” the president-elect now has the fundamental opportunity to prove all detractors wrong, all advocates right, and make all Nigerians a believer in the possibility of good things coming out of Nazareth.

The most fundamental question for me, therefore, is: how does Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu transform himself into the transformational leader Nigeria urgently needs at this crucial moment in history? The challenges of transformation in this context translates into mining the many opportunities for a game-changing performance that will leverage change management frameworks and dynamics towards not only rolling back the deficits of the past eight years, but also jumpstarting the economic machineries to achieve inclusive growth that will harness the social, generational and youth capital and talents in Nigeria towards transforming Nigeria’s productivity profile. 

First, vision and visioneering is key. Or, in precise terms, what is needed is a critical conceptualization of the socioeconomic problematics that have kept Nigeria locked into a cocoon outside all possibilities of achieving greatness in the comity of nations. This requires that the president gets the calibration of three levels of strategic base fundamentals right. The first requires, as a matter of necessity, a baseline policy and economic assessment of Nigeria’s present situation that constitute a clear and present danger to her potential greatness in a global world. And this enables me recall clearly the sterling performance of President-elect Tinubu at the Nigerian Economic Summit Group (NESG) presidential engagement forum meeting in January 2023. At that meeting, Asiwaju clearly and without any hesitation outlined an understanding of Nigeria’s current state and realities within certain macroeconomic assumptions that have kept Nigeria’s growth rather stunted despite all the best efforts of successive leaders.

This takes me to the second strategic base fundamental: the determination of an architecture of the change space within which the visioneering and strategic articulation of policy dynamics would be managed. If anyone would hear me out, I am strongly convinced that this is the strongest forte of Asiwaju Tinubu. Lagos State and the trajectory of its continuing governance successes over different governors prove this. At the NESG dialogue, Tinubu articulated the vision of a private sector-led economic growth for Nigeria, powered by a reformed public sector. And such a vision automatically puts the burden of performance on the capacity to harness a professional and intellectual capital of a crop of committed experts, technocrats and teams who can be trusted with the patriotic task of performing the vision that can make Nigeria better. The change space is a space of leadership, team building and policy intelligence. It is within this space that the IQ of the administration’s first eleven team-at the tactical, strategic and operational levels-is determined. It is also within this space that leadership forthrightness in policymaking and diversity management play out. No matter how charismatic and visionary a leader is, he or she needs those around him or her who can understand the vision, articulate the framework for realizing it and the mechanism for translating it into tangibles for the welfare of the people.

The third base fundamental that the president-elect must get right in order to game-change the Nigerian predicament is the articulation of a competent change management strategy that speaks to the “how” of a culture change that re-engineers and re-professionalizes the public service into a capability readiness to backstop Nigeria as a capable and democratic developmental state. It is through a coherent and politically supported public service reform that Asiwaju can achieve his aspiration for a innovative, producing and productive Nigeria that he so beloved. I will further outline the fundamental dimension of this change management in my next piece.

Against all odds, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu has been elected the next president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Even though he is not a stranger to impactful governance, becoming the president at this time in the history of Nigeria is clearly a providential act. His divine mandate is therefore very clear: to reverse the misfortunes that have been visited on hapless Nigerians by unscrupulous politicians, and to give the citizens their first taste of true leadership backed by clear infrastructural development, a diversified and strong productive economy, and a globally competitive Nigeria thinks local but act global. These are the times that try Nigerians’ souls and patience, but then the president-elect is also not a stranger to hewing honey out of the rock.      

By Olusola Adeyoose

The presidential election campaign in Nigeria is sadly taking an ethnic dimension. Debates between supporters of the dominant candidates who are equally from some of the largest ethnic groups in the country often generate ethnic tensions. We have also seen some of the presidential candidates appeal to their ethnic bases in a bid to secure buy-ins from their communities. This should not be surprising. Presidential elections in Nigeria are often accompanied by ethnic undertones.

Being a federal state, many of our political parties since independence have been organised along regional lines.  Perhaps what makes 2023 peculiar is that for the first time since the beginning of the Fourth Republic, three candidates from the nation’s three biggest ethnic nationalities are enjoying wide popularity and that has brought to the fore once again the sense of rivalry between the different ethnic nationalities in the country.

Ordinarily, one would expect that candidates and their supporters would be employing persuasion and rhetoric to woo more voters to their sides to gain victory. But a few days before the elections, slurs and insults seem to be dominating.  With the prevailing ethnic tensions, two words that are often thrown around and abused in defining supporters of political opponents are tribalism and bigotry. Tribalism is used as a negative connotation and a pejorative like bigotry is used to define ethnic solidarities. Dictionary checks of the word however easily reveal that bigotry is defined by discrimination against outsiders and intolerance of other people’s identities and ideas, rather than as solidarity with one’s own nominal groups. 

When people express outright prejudice against members of a different ethnic group to theirs, it would amount to bigotry and that stands condemned. However, people are not bigots simply because they believe their interests would be better protected and served by electing leaders who share their faiths or ethnicity. People are not bigots because they easily identify with members of their groups and because they easily make the aspirations of group members theirs. 

A few years ago, when Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala was contesting to be Director-General of the World Trade Organisation, she enjoyed wide solidarity from Nigerians. We hoped and wished she won not because we compared her to the other contestants, but because we identified with her as Nigerians and it does not make us bigots. In the run-up to the 2008 American presidential election, Barack Obama enjoyed broad support from Africans all over the world. In the said election, 96 percent of black voters voted for Obama. The support Obama enjoyed from the black community all over the world is not necessarily because we evaluated the candidates and considered him best. It was mostly about the recognition of our common identity as blacks and the notion, however wrong or right, that his victory at the polls was somehow also a triumph for the black man. 

That such a democratic choice was not made strictly on the basis of merit does not make it any less valid. Democracy does not in fact promise the selection of leaders based on merit. If it did, national constitutions would have been clear on what criteria to follow to ultimately choose the best candidates as presidents. Defining merit can indeed prove contentious as there would hardly be uniformity of priorities or judgements within diverse populations. The selection of leaders in a democracy is reserved for individual voters. Voters are at liberty to choose whoever resonates with them based on whatever criteria they wish as much as is permissible within the ambit of the law. Where voters exhibit their choice more in favour of shared associations, it should not be derided. Such bias or solidarity for the similar is the stuff of elections the world over.

The idea of democratic representation is based on the need to have leaders who can protect the interests of electorate. This is even more so in a federal state like ours where different ethnic nationalities sometimes have conflicting aspirations. The concept of national unity as espoused by our constitution is to promote integration not assimilation or erasure of our respective cultural identities. It is therefore the responsibility of presidential candidates to reach out to people outside of their own groups; deploying rhetoric and logic, acknowledging the peculiarities of those groups, and building bridges that would engender trust and make members of those groups see them as one of their own and as being capable of serving their interests better.

Our tendency to relatively trust members of our own groups with our aspirations as compared to outsiders is instinctual. It is the same instinct that makes us easily identify with members of our groups and make their dreams our own. That assumption that members of our own group would serve our interests better is not always true, but it’s not unreasonable.

I once argued that fidelity to cultural affiliations in voting for presidential candidates on the basis that such ethnic candidates do not often protect wider group interests. The poor and deprived people of Nigeria, for example, have more in common in form of socioeconomic realities than they share with leaders from their ethnic groups. As such, a political choice should be based more on issues rather than illusory ethnic identities. A good example of this is how much of Northern Nigeria is currently being ravaged by banditry as compared to the south despite having Buhari – a northerner, as president.

Perceived favouritism by the federal government in the execution of projects, however, makes for a counter-argument. It would for example be difficult to convince the people of Otuoke in Bayelsa State that there would have been a federal university in their community but for the presidency of their son Goodluck Jonathan. It would equally be difficult to convince the indigenes of Daura in Katsina State that the University of Transportation would have materialized if their son was not the president. 

We cannot deny the fact that political leaders sometimes commit resources to develop their communities at the expense of other parts of the country. Such reality and the political patronage enjoyed by members of their ethnic groups would continue to make a case for ethnic solidarity. The problem, therefore, is not the common people who think they’re protecting their interests by supporting members of their ethnic groups to the presidency. What would weaken the effect of ethnic loyalties in our polity is the entrenchment of equitable governance processes that would not benefit any part of the country at the expense of others. 

Political campaigns are like efforts at winning a beautiful bride. The candidates and their supporters are the suitors, while the voters are the beautiful brides. The voters are to be wooed and pampered to gain support. Even when we believe we possess superior arguments to some of their biased views, they are to be convinced, not maligned. Resorting to blackmail, intimidation or coercion would only further alienate voters and deepen pre-existing divisions. In a multicultural society like ours, it is the responsibility of presidential candidates and their supporters to build bridges across the country so they can enjoy widespread popularity. Only candidates who have effectively built networks outside of their ethnic bases would be able to win the majority of votes and win 25 percent of votes in at least two-thirds of our states as required by the 1999 constitution to become president. Ethnic candidates with divisive rhetoric are unlikely to meet that constitutional provision.

The notion that people are necessarily resorting to base sentiments once they are supporting candidates we dislike, for reasons we cannot fathom, is unimaginative. Where ethnic solidarity even exists, it does not amount to bigotry. What constitutes bigotry, however, is intolerance of dissenting views. Throwing derogatory words like bigotry around would only further alienate citizens, stoke the embers of ethnic discord, and diminish overall votes for our candidates. Accusing people of bigotry because they choose to identify with candidates from their ethnic nationalities, who they believe will better serve their interests in the federal government, is not only an abuse of that word; it is ignorant or pretentious of our political history and contemporary realities.

• Adeyoose can be reached via adeyoosesola@gmail.com

By Mukesh Kapila

All faiths have their sacred shrines, dedicated rituals, and obligatory pilgrimages. So does globalisation. Its adherents congregate annually at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in the Swiss Alpine resort of Davos. This is easily accessible to its high priests by private jet into Zurich and a helicopter transfer.

Lesser mortals use mundane terrestrial locomotion, as I have done a few times representing whichever organisation employed me at that moment. But I found that speed-dating celebrities is not a particularly satisfying experience and extracting something meaningful from their platitudes is mentally draining.

The 53rd gathering of the WEF faithful has just concluded amidst the usual critiques that are even more trenchant this year. Much of these derive from the elite nature of a club of multi-billion-dollar enterprises with a sophisticated caste system of membership paying between US$120,000 to US$600,000 for different levels of engagement. That buys fast-track access to world leaders, global institutional heads – and myriad thinkers, movers, shakers, and influencers.

I recall from earlier times how rubbing shoulders with the great and good used to feel awesome. That was the age of uncritical reverence for our democratic rulers and implicit belief in their mantra of market-driven globalisation. When doubts arose that democracies were faltering through majoritarian capture and corruption, and exploitation and unfairness are to be tolerated on the road to riches, it was to Davos you returned to renew your faith.

As times changed, ‘Davos man’ did not. Nowadays, he is pilloried as part of an unaccountable cabal-think perpetuating the world disorder that brings him extraordinary wealth at the cost of unimaginable destitution for billions.  Worse, he profits even more from crises and disasters, for example the COVID-19 pandemic. Oxfam’s report to the WEF on ‘Survival of the Richest’ estimates that the richest one per cent grabbed two-thirds of all new wealth worth – US$42 trillion – since 2020, after the super-rich had already grabbed half of all new wealth in the past decade.

But even that is not what attracts so much ire and indignation. This comes from the unchanging tone-deafness of Davos that is evident from previous meetings that differ little from this year’s  theme of ‘co-operation in a fragmented world’. To pick a sample, the 1990 theme was ‘competitive co-operation in a decade of turbulence’  which shifted via global cooperation and mega competition (1992) towards managing volatility (1998), managing the divides (2001), and creating a shared future in a fractured world (2018).

Over the years, there is remarkable consistency in the Davos playbook. First, create a credible piece by on-message academics that uncritical acolytes can amplify far and wide. Once a suitably gloomy mood music has been generated, curate echo-chamber discussions in the Forum. Conclude by making the same diagnosis and offering the same prescription: our world is in a mess because we have sinned against the sacred laws of globalisation. Repent, reform, and redouble your labours towards better global citizenship.

This year was no exception. The WEF’s agenda-setting ‘Global Risks Report 2023’ chanted the familiar litany of the cost-of-living crisis, Covid, climate collapse, conflict, catastrophe, cybercrime, cohesion breakdown. The consequences are a global polycrisis blamed significantly on competitive state interventions that drive geoeconomics warfare and geopolitical fragmentation. The concluding sermon preached the virtues of solid economic growth and frontier technologies with private sector partnerships at the centre. Due obeisance was made towards poverty and inequality, diversity and inclusion, civil society and social responsibility, equitable trading, supply chain dysfunctions, resilience and sustainability.

Yes, it is irritating that too many horribly-behaved people blot the horizon. Conflicts worldwide are at a record level. But there is hope with business co-operation promised for Israeli-Palestinian rapprochement, motivating the Myanmar military junta, profitable reconstruction of post-war Ukraine, and for turning crisis-ravaged Africa into a lucrative arena for free trade.

Other offerings at the altar of WEF 2023 included promises to plant trees, conserve the oceans, generate renewable energy, invent smart new batteries, achieve net zero, and bring clean water, better health, education and skills for the workforce that must get more productive in delivering the goodies. To inspire and excite them will be several new centres and programmes including a global collaboration village and purpose-driven metaverse. Of course, such a bold trajectory is bound to produce unfortunate casualties along the way. But do not be discouraged. The added suffering will be remedied by numerous organisations of the United Nations and in the international humanitarian system that are  standing-by for your philanthropy. Business partnerships will be at the forefront of succouring humanity with several new alliances announced at Davos.

Thus, the lives of billions will be saved and transformed. But the journey to the promised land comes with the threat that we shall perish if we don’t remain faithful to a particular vision of globalisation that brooks no criticism or change. At least not in Davos where repeated doses of the same medicine, year after year, has put the global patient in intensive care. 

If the discontents get a hearing, what would they want? They are not against globalisation but resent the hollowing-out of their nation-states on which it is constructed. They are not against greater interconnectedness but they object to dependence on the uncertain mercies of strangers as with Covid-19 medicines and vaccines. They instinctively reach out to someone in distress in a distant world corner but do not want to be the objects of pity and charity, least of all through massive global institutions.

They are hungry for the knowledge and wisdom of others but not by losing their own. They love the songs and dances of others but take pride in their own culture and traditions. They happily take-up any technology from anywhere to improve their lives but want the chance to innovate too.

They want the efficiencies of scale in factories but treasure hand-crafted beauty. They want efficient marketplaces while loving the intimate corner-store. They want to be free to travel, work, and live anywhere but contrarily, control who ventures into their space.

The discontents also want to have a voice in deciding who rules them and how to hold them accountable. They are not against the rich and agree that they should pay higher taxes but better still they want to stop the accumulation of excessive wealth through profiteering. They want peace around the world but not on terms that are unjust or that stifle human rights. Above all, they do not want to be just a blob in the globalisation that is now in the fourth phase of a journey that started down the Silk Road at least 2000 years ago – according to the WEF.

Perhaps its next phase – Globalisation 5.0 – is about coming home? That does not mean the world disintegration feared by WEF.

On the contrary, by re-connecting the global to the local, it holds the promise of new vitality. Globalisation rooted in strong communities and directed by confident mutually-respecting nations will be ultimately more legitimate than that driven from the commanding heights of Davos.

• This article was first published in www.e-ir.info

Yesterday, the Justice Tertsea Aorga Kume-led Osun State election petition tribunal sitting in Osogbo, the Osun State capital, nullified the election of Ademola Adeleke of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as governor of the state. In its ruling, the panel declared Gboyega Oyetola of the All Progressives Congress (APC) validly elected as governor.

The judges held that the witnesses called by both the petitioners and respondents admitted over-voting and thereby the outcome declared by the 1st respondent, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on the July 16, 2022 governorship election was not in compliance with the law.

Adeleke had polled 403,371 votes against Oyetola’s 375,027 votes. The PDP candidate was victorious in 17 of the 30 Local Government Areas (LGAs) in the state governorship poll. The remaining 13 LGAs went to Oyetola.

Not satisfied with the result, Oyetola filed a petition at the tribunal challenging the declaration of Adeleke as winner of the election. He asked the panel to nullify the election, hinging his case on alleged over-voting, infractions in some polling units, and the authenticity of the West African Examination Council (WAEC) certificate presented by the PDP candidate, among other grounds.

While it found Oyetola’s arguments on Adeleke’s certificate lacked merit, the tribunal agreed that the PDP was declared winner in error owing to over-voting in some polling units. But in a dissenting view, one of the judges opposed the ruling saying that the petitioners placed their evidence on BVR obtained on July 27 and paid for on July 28, 2022.

All through the sitting of the tribunal, analysts posited that Bimodal Voters Accreditation System (BVAS) used by INEC during the July 16, 2022 gubernatorial poll was on trial.

Explaining what BVAS is as well as its importance to elections, Sections 47(2) of the 2022 Electoral Act says that to vote, the presiding officer shall use the smart card reader or any other technological device that maybe prescribed by the Commission for the accreditation of voters to “verify, authenticate the intending voter in the manner prescribed by the Commission.”

At the point of introducing the device to Nigerians, INEC had painstakingly explained that BVAS was an electronic device designed to read Permanent Voter Cards (PVCs) and authenticate voters – using the voters’ fingerprints – in order to prove that they are eligible to vote at a particular polling unit.

The commission made further revelations about the workings of its latest technology when it said BVAS usage entails either scanning the barcode/QR code on the PVC/Voter’s register or entering the last six digits of the Voter Identity Number or typing in the last name of the voter by the Assistant Presiding Officer (APO 1) to verify and authenticate the voter.

BVAS in Osun

Expectedly, BVAS was deployed for use in the Osun July 16, 2022 governorship election in compliance with the law. Specifically, INEC guidelines say BVAS shall be the only mode of accreditation for the purpose of the election. All voters were subjected to it before they were issued with ballot papers to vote.

After elections, the results were then collated and entered manually on INEC form EC8As. More importantly, the number of voters on INEC Form EC8A must never exceed the number of accredited voters on BVAS. Were that happen, over-voting would be established and the implication is automatic cancellation of the result of the affected polling unit as prescribed by the Electoral Act 2022.

Thus, when a winner was declared at the end of the July 16, 2022 governorship election in Osun, it was assumed that the numbers of accredited voters and eventual voters on BVAS and Form EC8As respectively tallied. Going by this innocent assumption, it was widely thought that Adeleke won and Oyetola lost. Even INEC, in declaring the PDP candidate winner, must have acted based on this assumption.

Preparatory to filing their petition at the Tribunal, APC applied for the BVAS report and Form EC8AS days after the winner was declared. The legal team needed to study the documents to see if there were loopholes they could argue at the Tribunal. The party left no one in doubt of its conviction that irregularities occurred during the election.

What needed to be established was the mode and shape the irregularities took. The answer to this, the APC and Oyetola believed, lay in a proper scrutiny of the documents obtained from INEC. Alas, from the Certified True Copy (CTC) BVAS report made available to Oyetola and the APC about three weeks after the July 16 governorship election, accreditation through BVAS was less than the number of votes cast in 749 polling units across 10 LGAs as declared by INEC.

There were also claims that BVAS was probably not used at all in some polling units.

Here are a few examples: In Ede-North Ward 5, Alusekere Unit 004, Owode Primary School, where the governor comes from, the total votes cast for that unit was 1,267 but BVAS recorded only 858 as accredited voters. Again, in Ward 5 unit 14, 206 votes were recorded for parties against 118 accredited through BVAS.

In Unit 15 of the same Ward 5 Alusekere, 177 votes were recorded in Form EC8A while the BVAS report said 108 voters were accredited. So, consistently, there were more voters than BVAS accredited, and those were the issues raised with the election results declared by INEC.

Read Also: Diri, Okowa back BVAS, constitutional role for monarchs

How BVAS exposed over-voting

Forced by the realities as captured by BVAS, Adeleke and PDP admitted that there was over-voting during the election. They, however, argued that the cases were not as rampant as APC and Oyetola claimed – admitting to it happening in only six polling units.

Cornered by the revelations of BVAS at the Tribunal, INEC also admitted to “seemingly” over-voting in some polling units. Deputy Director in charge of Information and Communication Technology, Abimbola Oladunjoye, under cross-examination from the petitioner’s counsel, Akin Okujinmi (SAN), said there was over-voting in the polling units she was confronted.

“I used the word seemingly because any comparison that should take place should be between EC8A and the physical BVAS machine. According to the INEC guidelines voter accreditation figure and total number accredited voters is taken from the physical BVAS machine and written on form EC8A,” Oladunjoye said while confirming that in some polling units, the number of voters were more than the number of persons accredited to vote using the BVAS.

A statistician and forensic examiner, Samuel Oduntan, said there was over-voting in some of the polling units he examined.

He admitted that his scrutiny of the documents led him to discover that over-voting occurred in some polling units, particularly six units in Ede South. The witness told the panel that in Ward 4 unit 7, of Ede South, the accreditation figure he mentioned in his witness statement was 313, while the accreditation on the BVAS report was 383, which showed over-voting. Like APC, PDP and INEC, the statistician credited BVAS for the discovery of irregularities.

During its sittings, the Justice Kume-led panel admitted and marked 976 BVAS machines as exhibit. To back up his claims, Oyetola, through his counsel Fagbemi had on November 1, 2022, while presenting its case, tendered exhibits that include election results from Ede North, Ede South, and Osogbo local government areas. The APC also alleged that in some polling units BVAS was not used, allowing irregularities to take place.

BVAS to the rescue

Justice Kume, while delivering a majority decision declared that INEC didn’t comply substantially with the constitution and the provisions of the Electoral Act. He subsequently deducted the over-voting observed from the votes scored by the candidates and declared that Oyetola won the election, having polled 314, 921, while Adeleke’s score came down to 290, 266.

To arrive at its verdict, the tribunal, as directed by the law, cancelled the results of polling units where there were over-voting. According to the judgement, all parties admitted that “BVAS machine is the primary source of the results which were analysed.” The verdict also established that Voters’ Register has no place in the present dispensation with the enactment of Electoral Act 2022. 

He said issuance of two different BVAS reports to the petitioners and the respondents by INEC amounted to tampering with documents. The chairman said, the BVAS report issued to the petitioners clearly showed that there was over-voting in the result declared by the INEC.

According to the panel, none of the witnesses of the respondents disputed the evidence of the petitioners as regards over-voting on the BVAs report, just as the INEC did not withdraw the BVAS report issued to the petitioners.

The panel further ruled that the arguments of the respondents that the BVAS reports issued to the petitioners was “unsynchronized and inchoate” was misconceived, as such claims were not shown on the report.

The tribunal further noted that the Electoral Act provides that where there is over-voting, the result for the said unit should be cancelled, adding that “it is the duty of the tribunal to deduct invalid votes from lawful votes”.

It recommended that to forestall manipulation of BVAS machine in the conduct of subsequent elections, the INEC server should be linked to the Nigeria Police server and linked with National Security Adviser for transparency, saying any of the reports emanating from these sources can be subjected to investigation.

The tribunal averred that despite the declaration of the INEC to conduct a free and fair election, the conduct of its officers has contradicted the claim.

At the end of the proceedings, the role of BVAS machine in exposing the irregularities committed during the election can’t be underestimated. To many analysts, the machine has become the antidote to electoral irregularities, especially appropriately applied by officers of the electoral commission.