A lawyer and founder of the Nigeria Election Petition Organisation, Ameze Belo-Osagie, has raised concerns over the interpretation of electronic evidence by Nigerian courts in election petition cases involving the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS).
Speaking during an interview with ARISE NEWS, Osagie said BVAS technology should make it easier for litigants to establish discrepancies such as over-voting during elections.
According to her, petitioners can compare BVAS accreditation records with the voter register and the number of votes recorded at polling units to demonstrate possible irregularities.
However, Osagie argued that some election petitions involving electronic evidence had failed because courts, in her view, had misinterpreted or applied too broadly a Supreme Court precedent concerning BVAS evidence.
She said the interpretation had, in some cases, resulted in petitioners being expected to produce the physical BVAS machines in court, rather than relying on relevant electronic records and reports.
Osagie described the treatment of electronic evidence as one of the significant issues emerging from her research into election litigation. Her study examined more than 3,300 election tribunal judgments covering more than two decades.
She noted that qualification disputes have historically recorded significant success in election litigation because they can often be supported with documentary evidence. Other allegations, including vote-buying and electoral violence, can be more difficult to establish because petitioners must satisfy the applicable evidential requirements.
The lawyer also stressed that election litigation should serve as a means of establishing what actually happened during an election, irrespective of whether a court eventually changes the declared result.
She expressed concern that the value of election petitions could be weakened when cases are determined mainly on technical grounds without a detailed consideration of the evidence presented.
Looking ahead to the 2027 general elections, Osagie said pre-election litigation would be particularly important, noting that court decisions can determine whether individuals are eligible to appear on the ballot before voters cast their ballots.
She also called for greater transparency from the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), saying wider access to election-related information would help litigants and the public better understand how electoral results were generated.
Osagie maintained that electoral reforms should focus primarily on preventing malpractice before and during elections, rather than relying solely on court proceedings after disputed results have been announced.
