Business is booming.

Evidences to show INEC transmitted presidential election results electronically emerge

133

More facts have emerged to show that the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC indeed transmitted the results of the 2019 presidential election electronically, as claimed by the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, Atiku Abubakar.

Atiku had in the petition he submitted at the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal claimed that the results he obtained from INEC’s server showed he had scored 18,356,732 votes to defeat President Muhammadu Buhari of the All Progressives Congress, APC, who had 16,741,430 votes.

This he said contradicted the results declared by INEC, which said Buhari scored 15,191,847 votes, while Atiku scored 11,262,978 votes.

Atiku had in his petition provided unique identification information of computers that they claimed belonged to INEC.

His team also said they will invite experts from Microsoft, IBM and Oracle to corroborate their claim.

INEC in its reply however denied transmitting election results electronically. The commission said the electoral act only gave room for transmission of results manually.

To show that INEC indeed transmitted results electronically, Atiku has called 12 witnesses who worked as electoral officers during the election.

Atiku, in his response to INEC’s denial attached affidavits from the 12 witnesses who said they worked for INEC.

The persons, according to the affidavits, said they worked as presiding officers and assistant presiding officers in Borno and Yobe.

According to PREMIUM TIMES, the documents released only identified them by their initials, but a source close to the former vice president 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.

Loading...

Comments are closed.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More