As controversy continues to trail the efficacy of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) following the judgement of the Osun State Election Petition Tribunal which declared the election of Ademola Adeleke illegal, the Independent Electoral Commission (INEC) insists there is no going back on the conduct of mock accreditations based on the use of BVAS machines across the country.
After the elections in 2022, The Human & Environmental Development Agenda (HEDA Resource Centre) tackled the INEC over the Certified True Copies (CTC) reports of the BVAS for the Osun governorship election. HEDA posed questions over the apparent variance in the copies given to the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
In August 2022, HEDA in a statement said: “On July 18, 2022, two days after a governorship election was conducted in Osun State, the APC candidate and Governor Adegboyega Oyetola reportedly applied for the Certified True Copies (CTC) of the BVAS Report for the election. The world had commended the conduct of the election on the basis of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System, BVAS).
“INEC was on record to have after the statutory payments were made on July 29, 2022, issued the CTC of the BVAS Report to APC and Oyetola. APC and Oyetola served INEC their Petition challenging results in 749 polling units on the account of suspected over-voting they believed took place in those polling units.
“INEC is alleged to, having discovered the palpable inconsistencies between figures recorded as accredited votes on the EC8A (result sheet) and the BVAS Report, tampered with the contents of the original BVAS report to protect the mandate awarded to Ademola Adeleke and PDP, at the expense of credible election, by issuing a fresh CTC to the defendants, claiming the CTC earlier issued to APC and Oyetola was incomplete and unsynchronised.
“Considering the Ekiti and Osun elections were conducted and declared on the basis of BVAS, How possible and plausible is it for INEC to have declared a winner from an unsynchronized BVAS? Considering the BVAS report issued was more than 10 days after the Osun election.
“As an Organisation committed to fight against corruption; financial and electoral, HEDA is concerned about this development. The Organisation observed the Osun election and engaged the process in collaboration with anti corruption agencies to campaign vote buying.
“Noting this particular serious inconsistency and those associated with the senatorial tickets attempts by the current Senate President in Yobe and Former Governor Godswill Akpabio in Akwa Ibom, INEC is charged to do better and remain consistent for a credible, free, fair and popular election in 2023.
“Furthermore, the anti-corruption agencies are further charged to vigorously monitor officials of the Commission to avoid inducement and compromise of the 2023 elections.”
“The BVAS device is gradually unveiling its monstrosity”, said Sunny-Gabriel Odey Esq. “It is inexplicable for the manual accreditation details in the Form EC8A series to be at variance with the digital entries in the bi-modal device. The discrepancy can only have emanated from the mischievous manipulation of the machine. So, who wins elections will depend on what happens in the inner recesses of INEC ICT room. The fact that two separate reports were generated by the same officials in Osun State confirms the ease with which the electronic device can be manipulated. I’ve read the minority decision of Justice Ogbuli also, and I’m glad that there’s still hope in the horizon. His judgment is more logical and cannot be classified in the category of ‘black market’ judgment as alluded to by some analysts.”
To P. D. Pius, Esq, an Abuja lawyer: “What is worrisome about the case and I see real danger for 2023 elections is the credibility of INEC to handle the BVAS machine report of accredited voters. In this case, INEC certified 3 different and inconsistent reports of BVAS machine accreditation thus:
1. Exhibit BVR relied upon by the Petitioners
2. Exhibit R. BVR relied upon by the Respondents and
3. Exhibit RWC relied upon by Justice B. A. Ogbuli who delivered the dissenting judgment.
All the 3 exhibits contain different reports of the actual number of accredited voters as purportedly recorded by BVAS for the Osun Governorship election of 16th July 2022. All the 3 reports have inconsistent figures with each other. All the 3 were certified by INEC as correct. Just imagine
Anyway, the majority judgment relied on the report BVR to nullify the votes of Adeleke in 744 polling units. This report was generated earlier and almost immediately after the election on 27th July 2023 about 11 days after the election. The Tribunal found this closer to the truth.
R. BVR was issued by INEC on 22nd August 2022 over one month after the election and when the case was already in Court. This was the report of accreditation relied upon by the Respondents.
The last report, RWC was also gotten about 2 months after the election.
The facts of this case make nonsense of the assurance by INEC that the record of accredited voters by BVAS machine will be available and complete in real-time on the exact day of the election. There will be nothing credible about 2023 elections if the total number of accredited voters by BVAS machine will not be complete on the day of election and we have to wait for a whole 2 months or more before there will be “synchronization” with the back-end server. Synchronization and back end server will be most invoked in 2023 election petitions. Better get your legal team ready
As a matter of fact, the mere issuance of 3 different reports of accredited voters by BVAS machine which are inconsistent with each other has completely eroded confidence reposed on INEC to conduct free, fair, and credible elections. This single fact is sufficient in my view to ask for the immediate resignation of INEC Chairman.
Little Wonder the Tribunal found the subsequent two reports to amount to tampering with official documents.
Whether the Tribunal is right or wrong, the mere existence of 3 different report of accreditation by BVAS machine calls for mass resignation of INEC officials. The Chairman should lead by example on this.
Note: Above is my personal opinion and is not an analysis of the merit or otherwise of the case on appeal. Consult an Election Law Expert on that. No free lunch even in Freetown.”
A post making being circulated on social media titled “The ABC of Osun Case for Laymen!” gave some more insight.
“Let me just explain what happened to you in the simplest of ways.
1) The BVAS is truly a game changer and should ordinarily be above manipulation.
2) The BVAS ascertains or validates voters’ identity, and it is mandatory prior to voting. Every voter must be BVASed before they are issued with a ballot to vote. In short, BVAS accredits voters.
3) After elections, the results are then collated and entered manually on INEC form EC8As. However, the number of voters on INEC Form EC8A must never exceed the number of accredited voters on BVAS. That’s over-voting and automatic cancellation under the EA 2022.
4) When a winner was declared by INEC in Osun elections, it was assumed by all that the BVAS and Form EC8As tallied. It was thought that Adeleke won and Oyetola lost.
5) APC applied for the BVAS report and Form EC8AS to file their petition days after the winner was declared.
6) APC in preparing their Petition found discrepancies between BVAS report and FORM EC8As in over 700 polling units. The votes recorded on Form EC8As literally exceeded what the BVAS accredited. There was over-voting by people who must have literally bypassed the BVAS either for not having PVCs or other dubious reasons.
7) Once INEC, PDP, and the Governor were served with the APC Petition, they all filed their responses and INEC added/pleaded another entirely different BVAS report, which INEC now DUBIOUSLY called a “SYNCHRONISED BVAS Report.”
7) So, there were two BVAS reports before the Tribunal. The one issued to APC before they filled their petition and the one issued to self by INEC during the pendency of the petition.
8) At the Tribunal, each party strove hard to prove which BVAS was credible and which was not. The Tribunal then had to decide that….
Now, you please be the judge. Which of the two conflicting BVAS does your conscience, if functional, say is credible? The first one that was used to declare a winner on the elections day or the other “SYNCHRONISED BVAS” issued to self and pleaded by INEC almost 30 days after a winner was already declared and during the pendency of the Petition of the APC???
What does your functional conscience say?
I think INEC National should be grateful to APC/Oyetola/Osun for helping them expose the manipulation that dubious politicians can subject the BVAS to.
Plus, voters must now know that bypassing the BVAS is not helpful. Everyone must be accredited by the BVAS to be eligible to vote.”
