Posted by In response to the petition filed before the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) by Peter Obi and the Labour Party (LP), the Independent National Electoral Commission, or INEC, has presented and concluded its defense.
After the evidence of the first respondent’s lone witness, Dr. Lawrence Bayode, a Deputy Director in the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Department of INEC, was over, INEC’s attorney, Abubakar Mahmoud, SAN, proclaimed the conclusion of the first respondent’s case.
In order to prepare for the witness call, INEC presented various documents that were accepted and designated as evidence.
The witness, who was led by Mahmood, claimed to have worked for INEC for 24 years.
The witness revealed to the court during cross-examination by Patrick Ikwueto, SAN, the petitioners’ attorney, that the software application for the election was tested on February 4.
A report on the testing existed, he said, but he did not have it with him in court.
However, the petitioners provided the witness with an E-transmission saver Web and compliance form, which was accepted and noted as evidence.
The pre-production test was conducted before to the election, the witness testified to the court.
He denied that the results on paper would differ from those in the IreV when asked if they would.
However, he went on to say that anything may occur while giving the IreV the results from form EC8A.
He acknowledged that testing on functionality, performance, and vulnerability were done in advance of the election.
The witness concurred with Ikwueto that remediation must be performed to address the high vulnerability mentioned in the report from the e-Transmission application report.
The witness claimed he was unaware of the website location where INEC posts its information.
In his cross-examination, Wole Olanipekun, SAN, counsel for Tinubu and Shettima, questioned the witness if the EC8A and EC8E forms served as the basis and basis of authenticity for any election by INEC. The witness responded in the affirmative.
The witness indicated that documents that were downloaded from INEC IreV that were blurry would not have an impact on the form EC8A’s physical findings because the image had no significance.
He claimed that after the recording, photographing, and submitting to INEC’s IreV, the election was over.
The witness responded to inquiries from APC attorney Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, by saying that the physical results are utilized to calculate the election’s final results and that the technical difficulties that happened on election day did not effect the collation of the results.
He said that physical results may also be acquired if the information downloaded from the IreV was unclear.
He also informed the court that ECOWAS had observed the poll but that he was missing their report.
The witness claimed that Amazon Web Services (AWS) offers access to INEC’s cloud trial log account.
He continued, saying that this demonstrates the patches that were applied to the E-transmission programs on AWS to resolve the issues that cropped up on election day.
Mahmoud informed the court that INEC’s defense in the Obi and Labour Party petition is closed following the evidence of the lone witness.
Tinubu and Shetimma, who are listed as the second and third respondents in the petition, will launch their defense tomorrow, Olanipekun subsequently informed the court.
Tinubu and Shettima’s opportunity to present their case was postponed to tomorrow by the five-person panel, which was presided over by Justice Haruna Tsammani.
In the petition with the file number CA/PEPC/03/2023 contesting President Bola Tinubu’s election, Obi and his Labour Party (LP) are signatories.
Bola Tinubu, president of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Kashim Shettima, and the All Progressives Congress (APC) are the respondents.