Related Posts
The controversy trailing the server allegedly owned and used by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in the conduct of the recent general elections may not have abated, as the commission on Sunday insisted that such server only existed in the imagination of the political class.
Lead counsel to INEC in the ongoing Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal,
Yunus Usman (SAN), in an exclusive document released to Daily Independent on Sunday, in reaction to earlier claims made by the European Union Elections Monitoring Team to Nigeria, which released its report in Abuja, described the controversy as needless and baseless.
Recall that the EU had stated that it knew nothing about INEC server that was allegedly used to transmit results of the 2019 general elections while fielding questions from reporters at the briefing which held in Abuja.
The opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) had dragged INEC before a tribunal, seeking access to the alleged server.

But INEC counsel while reacting to the petitioners claims, said, “The petitioners’ application for access to a server has attracted needless controversy over what is a simple matter. Without touching on the merit of the case which is sub judice, much of the comments in the public domain on the issue are generalisations, some of them mischievous, made without appreciation of the context of litigation over a narrow and specific issue.
“The petitioners’ claim all started with a witness statement on oath by the petitioners which refer to information from a specific server alleged to belong to INEC. The server is identified by a Physical/Mac Address 94-57-A5-DC-64-B9, a Mac Address being the unique identifier of a hardware such as a server, and running on Microsoft Product ID 00252-7000000000-AA535 which is claimed to be exclusive to INEC.
“Screenshots of figures said to be results from the 2019 presidential elections obtained by www.factsdontlieng.com from the same server were widely shared on the social media and formed part of the petitioners’ statement before the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal.
“The petitioners then applied for leave of the tribunal to compel INEC to allow it to inspect the said server. The application is for access to a specific server.
“Screenshots from the alleged server respondent’s statement, in response, INEC’s legal team said that the server in question neither exists in, nor belongs to the commission, and cannot therefore grant access to what it does not have.

“The site www.factsdontlieng.com was not created or owned by INEC and no server with the detailed and unique identifier mentioned by the petitioners is owned or operated by it.
“Needless controversy. How the response by INEC’s legal team can be misconstrued to mean a blanket denial that the commission has no servers at all is mind boggling. The petitioners approached the tribunal with a specific request.
“The legal team responded that INEC does not have that particular on-premises server for the purpose alluded to by the petitioners. The onus is on the petitioners to prove their allusion and establish their claims. If the petitioners do not know how INEC’s IT systems operate, they should not have made a definite statement on oath about a specific equipment which is unknown to the respondent.
“It is like accusing someone of holding information on a personal Techno mobile phone, including its unique IMEI or MEID identifier number, and then file a suit in a court of law to compel him to allow access to the phone when in reality the person only uses Samsung and Nokia brands of mobile phones. If the person says that he does not have a Techno phone which is the issue in contention, it does not mean that he does not have mobile phones at all. Petitioners should not go fishing”. (Daily Independent)
Lead counsel to INEC in the ongoing Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal,
Yunus Usman (SAN), in an exclusive document released to Daily Independent on Sunday, in reaction to earlier claims made by the European Union Elections Monitoring Team to Nigeria, which released its report in Abuja, described the controversy as needless and baseless.
Recall that the EU had stated that it knew nothing about INEC server that was allegedly used to transmit results of the 2019 general elections while fielding questions from reporters at the briefing which held in Abuja.
The opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) had dragged INEC before a tribunal, seeking access to the alleged server.

But INEC counsel while reacting to the petitioners claims, said, “The petitioners’ application for access to a server has attracted needless controversy over what is a simple matter. Without touching on the merit of the case which is sub judice, much of the comments in the public domain on the issue are generalisations, some of them mischievous, made without appreciation of the context of litigation over a narrow and specific issue.
“The petitioners’ claim all started with a witness statement on oath by the petitioners which refer to information from a specific server alleged to belong to INEC. The server is identified by a Physical/Mac Address 94-57-A5-DC-64-B9, a Mac Address being the unique identifier of a hardware such as a server, and running on Microsoft Product ID 00252-7000000000-AA535 which is claimed to be exclusive to INEC.
“Screenshots of figures said to be results from the 2019 presidential elections obtained by www.factsdontlieng.com from the same server were widely shared on the social media and formed part of the petitioners’ statement before the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal.
“The petitioners then applied for leave of the tribunal to compel INEC to allow it to inspect the said server. The application is for access to a specific server.
“Screenshots from the alleged server respondent’s statement, in response, INEC’s legal team said that the server in question neither exists in, nor belongs to the commission, and cannot therefore grant access to what it does not have.

“The site www.factsdontlieng.com was not created or owned by INEC and no server with the detailed and unique identifier mentioned by the petitioners is owned or operated by it.
“Needless controversy. How the response by INEC’s legal team can be misconstrued to mean a blanket denial that the commission has no servers at all is mind boggling. The petitioners approached the tribunal with a specific request.
“The legal team responded that INEC does not have that particular on-premises server for the purpose alluded to by the petitioners. The onus is on the petitioners to prove their allusion and establish their claims. If the petitioners do not know how INEC’s IT systems operate, they should not have made a definite statement on oath about a specific equipment which is unknown to the respondent.
“It is like accusing someone of holding information on a personal Techno mobile phone, including its unique IMEI or MEID identifier number, and then file a suit in a court of law to compel him to allow access to the phone when in reality the person only uses Samsung and Nokia brands of mobile phones. If the person says that he does not have a Techno phone which is the issue in contention, it does not mean that he does not have mobile phones at all. Petitioners should not go fishing”. (Daily Independent)
