Politics
PEPT: Obi Calls Cyber Security Expert As Eight Witness
On Thursday, cyber security expert Dr. Chibuike Ugwoke stated that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) uploaded a picture of a book on its results viewing portal, IReV instead of displaying the results of the presidential election that took place on February 25.
Dr. Ugwoke, appeared before the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) in Abuja as the eighth witness (PW-8). He testified in a case initiated by Mr. Peter Obi, the candidate of the Labour Party (LP), who seeks to invalidate President Bola Tinubu’s election.
After commencing his testimony on Wednesday, the expert witness known as PW-8 was unable to complete his cross-examination as the Respondents raised concerns about needing more time to review his sworn statement.
As a result, during the proceedings on Thursday, the witness was called back to the stand. Each of the Respondents, including INEC, President Tinubu, Vice President Kashim Shettima, and the All Progressives Congress (APC), had the opportunity to question him before the five-member panel led by Justice Haruna Tsammani.
During the cross-examination, Dr. Ugwoke revealed that he had conducted an analysis on INEC’s ICT infrastructure, specifically focusing on what he referred to as “Meta Data.”
During his testimony, Dr. Ugwoke informed the court that the Meta Data he analyzed accurately described the information stored in the system.
He stated that his analysis focused on 12 polling units across three states: Bauchi, Anambra, and Rivers. Additionally, he mentioned that his report, which was submitted as evidence, also referenced Benue state.
The witness further disclosed that the petitioners sought his expertise on March 10 to examine the content uploaded by INEC onto its IReV portal following the presidential election.
“Though I initially sent a preliminary report which was more like an overview, around March 1, I later wrote an elaborate report in the middle of May,” he stated.
The witness acknowledged that before preparing his final report, which was submitted as evidence, he had read Mr. Obi’s petition along with the responses provided by the Respondents.
During his testimony, the witness stated that his analysis uncovered that INEC officials had made erroneous inputs into the IReV portal using the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) machines.
When questioned about whether he knew the identities of those responsible for the incorrect inputs, the witness responded by saying, “I don’t know who made the uploads, but it was from the BVAS, and the number is there.”
He said though he did not in the course of his assignment, interrogate any INEC official, “but I interrogated the INEC manual.”
Asked if he contacted the Labour Party to give him what should have been the actual results from the polling units, the witness, said: “No my lords, I did not”.
“In one of the instances, the picture of a book was uploaded instead of election results. I interrogated the Amazon Web Services, AWS, that was how I got to know because the information was there in the server,” he stated.
The witness informed the court that he specifically selected 12 polling units out of the total 176,846 across the country, based on his proof of consent.
Regarding INEC’s claim of technical glitches affecting the electronic transmission of results, the witness stated that such technological errors could be identified during the testing phase of an application before its actual deployment.
He said: “Errors arise at the time of testing, but after deployment, the probability for an error to arise may be very negligible. However, it is not impossible for error to arise after deployment.
“I used three states to show that it is possible to display the meta data in the IReV portal. I proved that there were errors and I did not have to examine the Forms EC8As, physically, to reach my conclusion.”
Asked if he could tell that results from polling units in the states he analysed, were properly collated, the witness, said: “That was not for me to prove, I only presented the facts.”
He told the court that all he did was from his computer, adding that he was familiar with the AWS, which INEC engaged for the general elections.
“AWS security is a shared responsibility model between the company and a client..With respect to security, there are three components; confidentiality, integrity and availability of data.
“Availability simply means that the data would not shut down and will be readily accessible when needed. That aspect is the responsibility of the AWS.” he added.
Asked if there was anything about electronic collating system in a press statement that INEC issued on the use of BVAS, which was cited in his report, the witness, said: “Yes, it was inferred in the last paragraph.”he added.
Politics
Ondo Election Legal Battle Intensifies As PDP’s Ajayi Files Appeal
The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate in the 2024 Ondo State governorship election, Agboola Ajayi, has filed an appeal against the December 2 ruling of the Federal High Court in Akure.
The court had dismissed his lawsuit challenging the eligibility of the All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate, Lucky Orimisan Aiyedatiwa, and his running mate, Olayide Owolabi Adelami.
Ajayi, in his notice of appeal dated December 7, 2024, alleged that Justice T.B. Adegoke erred in dismissing his case, which was marked FHC/AK/CS/99/2024.
READ MORE: Davido Spotted With Burna Boy’s Mother At Tony Elumelu’s All White Party
The PDP candidate’s initial lawsuit raised concerns over discrepancies in the certificates submitted by Aiyedatiwa to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). Ajayi argued that these discrepancies violated electoral laws and called into question Aiyedatiwa’s qualifications to run for office.
Key Allegations in Appeal
Ajayi presented multiple grounds for his appeal, accusing the Federal High Court of failing to properly evaluate the evidence before it.
He claimed that: “Unexplained Certificate Discrepancies: Ajayi stated that the trial court failed to address “unexplained and irreconcilable differences” in the names on Aiyedatiwa’s certificates.
According to him, “The 1st Respondent submitted different certificates with different names that were not the same. Throughout the dispute before the trial court, the 1st Respondent never presented a Deed Poll to explain the irreconcilable differences.”
Failure to Grant Reliefs: He criticized the court for dismissing his reliefs despite what he described as compelling evidence.
Ajayi argued, “The lower court failed to properly evaluate the evidence presented before it, which was essentially documentary. The refusal to grant the reliefs in the face of credible evidence on record occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice.”
Neglect of Documentary Evidence: Ajayi contended that the court neglected its duty to evaluate critical statutory documents, which he said were central to proving his case.
He added, “The court was called upon to examine and evaluate the documentary evidence but failed to do so, instead relying on extraneous matters without giving appropriate consideration to whether those assertions were correct.”
Standing to Sue: The PDP candidate argued that the trial court erred by dismissing his legal standing to challenge Aiyedatiwa’s nomination. He noted, “The issue of nomination and sponsorship of a candidate is both intra- and inter-party affairs of an interested party in an election, as in this instant case.”
Ajayi is asking the Court of Appeal to overturn the High Court’s judgment and grant the reliefs he sought at the trial court.
These include an order invalidating Aiyedatiwa’s candidacy due to the certificate discrepancies and setting aside the December 2 ruling.
Specifically, he requested, “An order allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of the Federal High Court sitting in Akure, Ondo State, delivered on the 2nd of December, 2024, by Hon. Justice T.B. Adegoke.”
“An order granting the reliefs sought by the appellants as plaintiffs before the trial court.”
Ajayi also faulted the court’s interpretation of Section 29(1)-(5) of the Electoral Act, 2022. He argued that the provisions were given a “narrow and restrictive” reading, which ignored the broader intent of the law.
The appeal is the latest development in the heated political contest between the PDP and APC in Ondo State.
Legal experts believe the outcome of the case could significantly impact the governorship race.
Politics
Adeleke Congratulates Ghanaian President-Elect, Mahama
Osun State Governor, Senator Ademola Adeleke has congratulated the newly elected president of Ghana, John Mahama.
This was gleaned in a government house statement in Osogbo on Monday in which Gov Adeleke described President Mahama as “a true democrat and a genuine friend of Nigeria”
Gov Adeleke stated, “we have been sharing deep thoughts about the true essence of democracy and the imperative of respect for people’s will as the bedrock of virile democratic state.
ALSO READ: Midterm Scorecard: Adeleke Appreciates Osun Residents, Assures On More Democratic Dividends
“All through his days in the opposition, he adopted the best of democratic model with unbending faith in the capacity of voters to decide and the necessity of the system to accept the voters’ will as expressed without any equivocation. His faith in the electorate amidst hard work of electioneering campaigns paid off with a resounding victory at the polls.
“I further commend the ruling party for conceding defeat without attempting any electoral hijack. This was a demonstration of electoral maturity worthy of emulation by actors within the Nigerian space.
“I rejoice with my dear brother as our dreams come true by the grace of God and the people. As he prepares to return to the State House, I have no doubt that he will take Ghana to greater heights.
“I call for a closer, more robust relationship between Nigeria and Ghana. Both countries must deepen cooperation under mutual respect and opportunities. Our brotherly relationship should extend to the sub-national level for the benefits of citizens and residents of our dear nations.”
Politics
SERAP Urges Akpabio, Abbas To Assess Human Rights Impacts Of Tax Reform Bills
The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has urged Nigeria’s Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, and Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tajudeen Abbas “to urgently assess the human rights impacts of Nigeria’s reform bills currently being discussed by the National Assembly including on Nigerians living in poverty.”
According to the SERAP said, “any discussion and consideration of the tax reform bills must ensure full compliance with provisions of the Nigerian Constitution 1999 [as amended] and the country’s international human rights obligations and commitments.”
The call was contained in a letter dated December 7, 2024, under the signature of its deputy director Kolawole Oluwadare, in which the SERAP stated, inter alia, “The assessments should be transparent, include public participation, and shape the provisions and measures that are ultimately passed. The outcome of any such assessments should be widely published.”
ALSO READ: Like America, Like Ghana: Opposition Defeats Ruling Party In Presidential Election
The SERAP urged Akpabio, and Abbas “to pass a resolution directing Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice to hold Nigeria’s state governors to account on their spending of trillions of naira of revenue derived from taxes including VATs collected by their states since 2015 and to ensure the recovery of any proceeds of corruption.”
The letter, read in part: “SERAP urges you to ensure the inclusion in the tax reform bills of transparency and accountability mechanisms to ensure that any revenue derived from taxes covered under the bills are not mismanaged, diverted or pocketed by politicians, their family members and close associates.
“SERAP notes that Nigerian authorities have the discretion to develop laws on taxation most appropriate to their circumstances.
“However, the Nigerian Constitution 1999 [as amended] and human rights and anticorruption treaties to which the country is a state party impose limits on the discretion of the authorities in the development of any such laws.
“Our preliminary review of the provisions of the tax reform bills shows that the bills contain some provisions that are antithetical to human rights and the rule of law.
“For example, section 28(2)(c) of the Tax Administration bill among others, requires financial institutions including banks to provide to tax authorities ‘the names, addresses, or any other information of new or existing customers.’
“Under section 28(4), financial institutions must make ‘additional disclosure” about their customers ‘if it is required by a notice signed by the Chief Executive Officer of the relevant tax authority.’
“These provisions, especially the phrases ‘any other information’ and ‘additional disclosure’, if implemented, could be used unjustifiably or arbitrarily to restrict the right to privacy of customers.
“The risks of violations of human rights are illustrated by the absence in the bills of sufficient safeguards against abuse of access to personal data of customers.
“The provisions also give little or no consideration to data protection, thereby increasing the risks of misuse by public authorities of a customer’s personal details including their home address.
“Another troubling provision of the tax reform bills is section 57 of the Tax Administration bill which grants broad, extensive and intrusive powers to tax authorities which may be misused to undermine Nigerians’ human rights.
“In particular, section 57(1) provides that ‘an authorised officer of the relevant tax authority shall have free access to all land, buildings, places, books and documents, in the custody or under the control of a person, public officer, or institution, for the purpose of inspecting the books or documents.’
“Such official will also have free access to ‘any property, process or matter which the officer considers necessary or relevant for the purpose of collecting any tax.’
“Under subsection 2, ‘the relevant tax authority shall take immediate possession of [any] removable media and the related removable equipment or computer used to access the stored documents on the media in order to prevent the accidental or intentional destruction, removal or alteration of records and documents.’
“Section 57(5) seems to pre-empt the nature of any judicial authorisation required for tax official ‘enter any private dwelling’ by prescribing that such authorisation will ‘be valid for a period of three months from the date of its issue or such lesser period as the judicial officer considers appropriate.’
“Under subsection 6, the tax official is required to ‘produce the written authorisation and evidence of identity “on first entering the private dwelling’. The official will only produce such evidence subsequently if they consider it reasonable to do so.
“These provisions are broadly worded and could be misused to violate Nigerians’ human rights.
“The provisions also do not contain any special safeguards which means that the broad, extensive and intrusive powers granted to tax authorities could be arbitrarily exercised without any accountability.
“Section 57 also does not contain any explicit provisions that would allow the court to examine the lawfulness or necessity of any authorisation before or after any entering.
“The provisions of section 81 of the Tax Administration bill essentially oust the jurisdiction of the court in pending tax matters by stating that ‘the pendency of a legal proceeding shall not affect the performance of the duties or obligations of any taxable person under this Act or any other tax law.’
“The provisions could be misused to infringe the rights to equality and the right of access to courts, denying the right of an effective remedy to any aggrieved party.
“Several other provisions of the tax bills lack mechanisms for effective oversight and accountability, as required by the rule of law in a democratic society, thereby increasing the risks of abuse of power or arbitrariness. The provisions could be misused to violate Nigerians’ right to property and fair hearing.
“The tax bills also do not seem to contain provisions for a fair balance between the authorities’ powers to collect taxes and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights.
“The absence of provisions in the tax bills on meaningful judicial oversight and review and accountability procedures would also undermine the rights of Nigerians including to privacy and disproportionately affect disadvantaged and marginalized individuals and groups.
“Under human rights law, states including Nigeria are required to make the promotion and protection of human rights central to their tax systems. Nigeria needs a rights-based tax system that works for the people and not the politicians, their family members and close associates.
“The country also needs transparent, democratic and rights-aligned tax reforms to unlock the maximum available resources for the full realisation of human rights.
“Furthermore, there are credible reports that several state governors continue to divert or mismanage the revenue derived from taxes, impeding the funding of public goods and services that are crucial for the progressive realisation of human rights.
“In many states, millions of Nigerians continue to be denied access to essential public services such as water and basic sanitation while millions of children of school age roam the streets.
“SERAP is concerned that growing reports of corruption in the use of tax revenue and other public resources continue to disproportionately affect poor Nigerians and other most vulnerable segments of the population.
“SERAP is concerned that the opposition by some state governors against the tax reform bills may be politically motivated and reduce the tax payable to the national treasury. State governors should constructively engage in good faith in the processes to adopt a national tax system for the country.
“We would be grateful if the recommended measures are taken in the consideration of the tax reform bills.
“If the offending provisions of the tax reform bills including those outlined above are not addressed and brought in conformity with human rights standards and safeguards, SERAP shall take all appropriate legal actions to compel you and other members of the National Assembly to comply with our request in the public interest.
“SERAP notes that the tax reform bills, if properly aligned with human rights standards, would enhance the ability of the Federal Government, states and local governments to fulfil their human rights obligations and adequately fund public services essential for human rights.
“However, without transparency and accountability, revenue derived from taxes may not be spent to combat poverty and fund development as well as provide essential public goods and services for Nigerians.
“The National Assembly has the constitutional responsibility to conduct and publish human rights impact assessments of the tax reform bills to ensure that proposed reforms best protect, advance and fulfill people’s human rights.
“SERAP also urges you to revise and repeal several of the provisions of the bills, particularly the Tax Administration bill.
“SERAP urges you to include provisions in the tax reform bills that will ensure that Nigerians have access to all relevant data and information on fiscal policy and government revenues, including from the corporate sector.
“According to our information, members of the National Assembly are currently discussing Nigeria’s tax bills which primarily aim to ‘provide uniform procedures for a consistent and efficient administration of tax laws in order to- (a) facilitate tax compliance by taxpayers; and (b) optimise tax revenue.’