A’court nullifies order on e-transmission of election results in Lagos

The court of appeal has set aside the ruling of a federal high court in Lagos that ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to electronically transmit election results in the state.

In March, the Labour Party (LP), its governorship candidate in Lagos, Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour, and 42 other house of assembly candidates filed a suit marked FHC/L/CS/370/2023, seeking an order of mandamus compelling INEC to comply with its regulations and guidelines which made provision for electronic transmission of results.

Peter Lifu, a Lagos federal high court judge, granted the reliefs sought.

The judge further compelled INEC to hire impartial, qualified, and dependable logistic companies not partisan in the distribution of election materials.

Aggrieved by the high court’s decision, the All Progressives Congress (APC) sought leave to appeal the ruling.

In its appeal, the APC submitted that INEC has discretionary powers to determine the mode of transmitting election results.

The party also submitted that the judge wrongly assumed jurisdiction to hear the matter as the suit ought to have been filed before the federal high court in Abuja.

They also argued that the court was wrong to have refused an application for joinder filed by the Social Democratic Party (SDP, adding that the matter before the lower court had far-reaching consequences that affect all registered political parties involved in the 2023 general election.

Delivering judgment on Friday, a three-member panel of the court of appeal led by Abubakar Umar agreed with the submissions of the APC.

The court held that Section 50(2) and Section 60(5) give INEC “very wide discretionary powers” to determine how it transmits or transfers election results.

“As I had demonstrated earlier in this judgment, the Electoral Act gives the 43rd respondent (INEC) discretion on how it carries out its assignment including how it transmits or transfers the result of election from polling units,” Umar stated.

“With due respect to the learned judge, an order of mandamus cannot be granted to fetter a discretion.”

The appellate court held that although the lower court premised its decision on the provisions of Clauses 37 and 38 of INEC Regulation and Guidelines, the Electoral Act gives the commission flexibility to “amend or vary” its regulations.

“It is my considered view that the power to make a regulation or guideline necessarily entails the power to amend or vary it,” Umar said.

The judge held that not even the allegation that INEC breached its regulations during the conduct of the presidential poll could not justify the order of mandamus issued by the lower court “because that is an issue for the election tribunal”.

The appellate court also described the suit as an abuse of the court process.