The Nation Newspaper

Tag: DDC machines

  • Missing 400 DDC machines: INEC’s continuous voter registration threatened in Rivers

    Missing 400 DDC machines: INEC’s continuous voter registration threatened in Rivers

    The sudden disappearance of four hundred of the 4,442 Direct Data Capturing (DDC) machines of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in Rivers State is threatening the continuous voter registration.

    Investigation in Port Harcourt yesterday revealed that the disappearance of the DDC machines would make assessing the data already captured by the DDC,difficult in view of inadequate backup and unreliable database.

    It was learnt that the issue of the missing DDC machines was recently raised at a meeting between the Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC) in the state, Aniedi Ikoiwak, and the Electoral Officers (EOS) across the 23 LGAs of the state in Port Harcourt.

    It was also gathered that the DDC machines used for the voter registration in 2011 were more than 4,442, with some large registration units given more than one machine, to cater for the large population.

    The electoral officers at the LGAs, after the voter registration in 2011, according to investigation, returned the DDC machines to the INEC’s state headquarters in Port Harcourt.They were properly documented and acknowledged.

    Some of the DDC machines were later discovered to have either be stolen or missing from the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Department without the doors, windows, protectors, roof and walls tampered with.

    No report was also made to the police about any missing DDC machine.

    Upon the discovery of the missing DDC machines, a panel, chaired by the Administrative Secretary, Emmanuel Evurulobi, was set up by the REC, to find out what happened, with all the electoral officers, including those on transfer, appearing before the panel members.

    The Assistant Electoral Officers, who temporarily took over the affairs of the INEC in the 23 LGAs, when the electoral officers were posted to other states, during the 2011 elections, also appeared before the panel , with only the Election EOs from other states exempted.

    Since the discovery of the disappearance of the DDC machines was made in June last year, none of the INEC officials, especially personnel of the ICT department and the electoral officers, has been queried.

    For fear of losing their jobs, some of the electoral officers, it was learnt, met with the REC and suggested handling the “sensitive” matter internally, without letting the INEC Chairman, Prof. Attahiru Jega, other senior officials at the Abuja headquarters and auditors know.

    Efforts were later made to procure new DDC machines, not minding the loss of data in the stolen ones, with funds sources from private sources.

    A staff of the ICT unit was mandated to travel to Lagos to procure the 400 laptops/DDC machines, to replace the missing ones, for the continuous voter registration, ahead of the fast-approaching 2015 elections.

    It was also revealed that the activities of the Rivers INEC have not been audited since 2008.

    Mr.Aniedi Ikoiwak could not be reached by phone for his reaction to the development.

  • DDC machines: Judge frowns at INEC, others’ absence in court

    The Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Ibrahim Auta, on Tuesday frowned at the absence of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), its Chairman, Prof. Attahiru Jega and in court to defend their request for stay of execution of the N17.3billion judgment entered against them.

    The judge was particularly livid by the fact that INEC, Jega and Zinox Technologies Limited who, in their applications, had created the impression that the next generals election were threatened by the existence of the judgment, deliberately chose not to attend court when they were to argue their applications for stay of execution of the judgment.

    Justice Auta had in the January 28, 2014 judgment faulted INEC and Jega over the N34.5 billion contracts they awarded in 2010 for the purchase of Direct Data Capturing (DDC) machines for voters’ registration.

    The judge held that in the award and execution of the contracts, INEC, its Chairman and three companies involved in the transaction, infringed on a valid and subsisting patent right owned solely by a firm – Bedding Holdings Limited (BHL).

    Justice Auta declared that BHL was entitled to 50 per cent of the contract sum of N34, 517,640,000 (which is N17, 258,820,000 “being the minimum reasonable royalty accruable to the plaintiff” for the unauthorised use of its invention.

    Defendants in the suit were – INEC, Jega, the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and the companies to which INEC awarded the contracts – Haier Electrical Appliances Corporation Limited, Zinox Technologies Limited and Avante International Technology.

    Shortly after the judgment, INEC, Jega and Zinox applied that the execution of the judgment be stayed on the ground that they were planning to appeal.

    They argued, in the applications, that in view of huge judgment sum, they would be incapacitated and unable to function if the judgment was not stayed.

    In the application filed for them by A. B. Mahmoud (SAN), INEC and Jega drew the court’s attention to the ongoing preparation for the 2015 general elections and argued that “an execution of this judgment will render it impossible for them to carry out this important constitutional and statutory duty.”

     

  • Court faults INEC over DDC machines’ contracts

    Court faults INEC over DDC machines’ contracts

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has faulted the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and its Chairman, Prof Atahiru Jega, over the N34.5 billion contracts the commission awarded in 2010 for the purchase of Direct Data Capturing (DDC) machines for voters’ registration.
    The court’s Chief Judge, Justice Ibrahim Auta, in a judgment on Tuesday, held that in the award and execution of the contracts, INEC, its chairman and three companies involved in the transaction, infringed on a valid and subsisting patent right owned solely by a firm – Bedding Holdings Limited (BHL).
    The judge held that from the totality of evidence provided by parties in the case, it was clear that the plaintiff, BHL actually owned a subsisting patent right over the process, application and the use of DDC machines for voters’ registration.
    He ordered INEC, Jega and others to pay BHL N17.25billion as compensation for infringing on its valid and subsisting patent right.
    BHL had in the suit filed by its lawyer, John Okoriko, alleged that INEC and Jega infringed on its patented right over “the process and application of DDC machines for the compilation and collection of various bio-data,” by awarding contracts for the purchase and deployment of the DDC machines for the compilation of the voters register without the consent of BHL.
    Named with INEC and Jega as defendants were the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and the companies to which INEC awarded the contracts – Haier Electrical Appliances Corporation Limited, Zinox Technologies Limited and Avante International Technology.
    Justice Auta upheld Okoriko’s argument and evidence to the effect that the plaintiff is the sole owner of the patent right over the process and that its rights were infringed by the conduct of the defendants, except the AGF.
    He held that although the AGF was not a party to the transaction, but as the nation’s chief law officer and a relevant officer in the execution of orders made against the government or its agents, he was a necessary party in the case.
    Justice Auta further held that the nation’s Patent and Design Act preclude anybody from using a patented invention without the consent of the inventor. He added that Section 6 of the Act provides for the protection of a patent right and that it was the duty of the court to ensure such protection.

  • Nov 28 date for N20b suit against INEC, others over DDC machines contract

    Nov 28 date for N20b suit against INEC, others over DDC machines contract

    The Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Ibrahim Auta has fixed November 28 for judgment in a N20billion suit against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and five others.

    The suit is over INEC’s alleged infringement on the patented right of a firm – Bedding Holdings Limited (BHL) – over “the process and application of Direct Data Capturing (DDC) machines for the compilation and collection of various bio-data.”

    BHL claimed that INEC by awarding contracts for the use of DDC machines for the production of voters’ register during the voters’ registration exercise of 2010 without its written consent, infringed on its patent right.

    The plaintiff is claiming 50per cent of the contract sum as the minimum royalty accruable to it or N20b in damages.

    INEC in 2010 awarded contracts of N34billion to Haier Electrical Appliances Corporation Limited, Zinox Technologies Ltd and Avante International Technology Incorporated for the supply of DDC machines, which it used for the voters’ registration exercise.

    Named with INEC as defendants in the suit are its Chairman, ProfAtahiru Jega, the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Haier, Zenox and Avante.

    Yesterday, parties adopted their final written addresses, with the plaintiff urging the court to grant all its prayers and discountenance the defendants’ arguments.

    It insisted that it possesses valid patent right over the process in question.

    BHL contended that if its innovation was not patentable, as argued by the defendants, the Registrar of Patent at the Ministry of Commerce and Industry would not have registered it.

    The plaintiff argued that its decision to sue the defendants for infringing on its patent right, and its claim for damages were supported by Section 25 (2) of the Patents and Designs Act.

    It said the above section of the Act supercedes the provisions of Paragraphs 15 to 17 of the Schedule of the Act, which INEC and Jega argued, protects them from any litigation should they infringe on patented right in public interest. .

    On their part the defendants asked the court to dismiss the suit.

    In their addresses, INEC, Jega and others queried the legitimacy of the plaintiff’s claim to a patented right over a process, which they claimed had been in existence before the plaintiff’s purported patent was granted.

    They argued that the process is not an innovation and had been used and continuously used by other government agencies for the issuance of driver’s licence and national identity cards.

    The defendants also cliamed that the process over which the plaintiff is claiming to have patent right “is not patentable. It is not a state of the art and has been applied several times during previous elections.”

    They argued that, even if they had infringed on the plaintiff’s right, they were covered under the provision of Paragraphs 15 to 17 Part II of the First Schedule of the Patents and Designs Act.