The EU observers' report, which was critical of INEC's conduct of the disputed election, was admitted as an exhibit in the case filed by Atiku Abubakar to challenge President Bola Tinubu's victory in the February poll.
The Presidential Election Petition Court in Abuja, where the outcome of the 25 February presidential poll is being challenged, on Monday, admitted in evidence the final report of the European Union Election Observation Mission (EUEOM) on the conduct of the poll.
The report, which was critical of INEC's conduct of the disputed election, was admitted as an exhibit in the case filed by the Peoples Democratic Party's candidate, Atiku Abubakar, to challenge President Bola Tinubu's victory in the poll.
Mr Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC) clinched victory in the polls, defeating Atiku, Labour Party's Peter Obi, who came third, and 15 other candidates in the race.
But both opposition candidates filed separate petitions at the court to challenge the outcome of the disputed 25 February election, citing widespread electoral malpractices, among other issues.
Earlier, PREMIUM TIMES reported how the EU Observers report, brought to court by Atiku's legal team on Monday, criticised the 2023 general elections. It said the election fell short of INEC's promise to deliver transparent and credible polls.
But Mr Tinubu dismissed the report, saying it was a "product of a poorly done desk job."
"We strongly reject, in its entirety, any notion and idea from any organisation, group and individual remotely suggesting that the 2023 election was fraudulent," Mr Tinubu's spokesperson, Jede Alake, said on Sunday while reacting to the EU report.On 23 June, Atiku and Mr Obi concluded their cases after calling their witnesses to testify in addition to tons of documents they tendered as exhibits before the five-member panel of the court headed by Haruna Tsammani.
The court subsequently adjourned for INEC, APC and Mr Tinubu to open defence on Monday.
At the resumed hearing on Monday, the electoral commission called its only witness in the suit, Lawrence Bayode, an IT expert, who testified in the matter.
Led in evidence by INEC's lawyer, Abubakar Mahmoud, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Mr Bayode told the court that "there was substantial compliance with the electoral act" in the conduct of the presidential election.
'Only 31 per cent of presidential election results correct'
Mr Bayode, an assistant director in charge of INEC's ICT department, adopted his witness statement on oath, which was admitted in evidence.
During the cross-examination of the witness, Atiku's lawyer, Chris Uche, sought to tender a copy of the EU Observers report concerning the conduct of Nigeria's recent general election.
Mr Uche, a SAN, fetched a copy of the report from reams of documents and made to pass it to Mr Bayode.
Mr Tinubu's lawyer, Yusuf Ali and APC's lead counsel, Lateef Fagbemi, both SANs, objected to the admissibility of the report.
The lawyers promised to give details of their objection later, as the court admitted the report in evidence.
After the court's conditional acceptance of the document as an exhibit, Mr Uche asked Mr Bayode to read excerpts from it that touched on the EU's assessment of INEC's conduct of the general election.
"The 2023 general election did not ensure a well-grown, transparent and inclusive democratic process as assured by the Independent National Electoral Commission," a portion of the report's executive summary read out by Mr Bayode stated.
"Only 31 per cent of the presidential election results uploaded on the IReV system were formally and mathematically correct, which evidenced serious deficiency in the training of polling staff," Mr Bayode added from the EU report.
Not all results of presidential poll uploaded on IReV portal
Testifying further under cross-examination, Mr Bayode informed the court that the introduction of the Bimodal Voters Accreditation System (BVAS) machines in the election was to guarantee "transparency and integrity of the results"
While acknowledging that the presidential and National Assembly elections held on the same day (25 February), Mr Bayode noted that "not all results (of the presidential poll) were uploaded on IReV, even after Mr Tinubu was declared president-elect on 1 March.
Asked by Mr Uche if the BVAS system has any inbuilt mechanism to distinguish the presidential election results from those of the National Assembly poll, Mr Bayode answered, "No."
In his petition filed on 21 March, Atiku alleged that INEC engaged an IT consultant, Suleiman Farouk, who ensured that a technology, Device Management System (DMS), was intermediated between the BVAS and the INEC Result Viewing (IReV) portal.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Atiku further alleged that the DMS was the software that allowed the commission to remotely "control, monitor and filter data transmitted from the BVAS devices to the IReV platform."
"The 1st Respondent (INEC) engaged an appointee of the 2nd Respondent (Mr Tinubu) to man and oversee the sensitive ICT department of the 1st Respondent for the purpose of the election."
"The petitioners contend and shall lead evidence to show that...the 1st Respondent contrived and installed an intervening third-party device (Device Management System) which, in its ordinary usage, is meant to secure and administer the 1st Respondent's technological ecosystem for the elections but as it relates to the presidential election, was used to intercept the results, quarantine and warehouse same, and filter them before releasing same to the IReV portal," the court documents read.
After Mr Uche's cross-examination session, Mr Bayode was discharged from the witness box.
INEC's lawyer, Mr Mahmoud, told the court that this was the end of its defence in Atiku's petition challenging the outcome of the presidential election.
