Court Declines To Compel INEC To Allow Temporary Voter’s Card For Election

The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, on Tuesday, took sides with the Independent National Electoral Commission, (INEC) as it struck out the suit that sought to compel the body to allow registered voters that are unable to collect their Permanent Voters Cards, PVCs, before the deadline, to participate in the forthcoming general elections, using either their temporary voter card or the Voters Identification Number, VIN.

The court, in a judgement that was delivered by Justice Binta Nyako, struck out the suit on the premise that the deadline INEC gave for the collection of PVCs across the federation, has not elapsed.

Justice Nyako held that it would amount to an academic exercise for the court to issue the order, when INEC, in furtherance of its decision to only allow those with PVCs to participate in the impending elections, extended the deadline for collection of the Voters Card.

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2348/2022, was brought before the court by a non-governmental organization under the aegis of the Incorporated Trustees of International Society for Civil Liberties & the Rule of Law, alongside two other plaintiffs-  Emmanuel Chukwuka and Bruno Okeahialam.

The plaintiffs told the court that they filed the action for themselves and on behalf of over 20 million registered voters they said were at risk of being disenfranchised by INEC in the 2023 general elections.

In the suit that had INEC as the sole Defendant, the Plaintiffs, through their lawyer, Mr Max Ozoaka, argued that in view of several administrative bottlenecks and challenges that are currently trailing the collection of PVCs across the federation, many registered voters would be denied the right to exercise their franchise.

They asked the court to determine whether; “Having regard to the clear and unambiguous relevant provision of the Electoral Act, 2022, and the true intendment of Section 47 (1) thereof, whether the defendant, can as a consequence of their own contraption, bottleneck, compromise and negligence, disenfranchised or otherwise deprive the plaintiffs and a class of persons they represent in this suit, the right and opportunity to vote in the forthcoming general election fixed for February 25 to March 12, 2023”.

Upon determination of the legal question, the plaintiffs, are praying to the court for: “A Declaration that having duly registered and been captured in the Defendant‘s Register of Voters and electronic database of registered voters, the Plaintiffs and all persons they represent in this suit are entitled to exercise their right to vote in the forthcoming general elections fixed for February to March 2023.

“A Declaration that all persons who have duly registered with the Defendant as voters and whose names are contained in the Defendant‘s Register of Voters and or electronic database of registered voters should not and cannot be deprived of the right and opportunity to vote in the forthcoming general election fixed for February to March 2023.

“An Order of the Honourable Court compelling the Defendant to release forthwith the Permanent Voters’ Cards of the Plaintiffs and all members of their class to enable them to vote in the forthcoming general election fixed for February to March 2023”.

As well as, “An Order of the Honourable Court directing the Defendant to reprint, distribute and release the Permanent Voters’ Cards of the Plaintiffs and all persons they represent in this suit or otherwise allow them to vote with their old (temporary) voters’ cards or registration slips already issued and released to them by the Defendant the affected persons having been duly registered and captured in the Defendant’s register of voters and or electronic database of registered voters”.

The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Ozoaka, told the court that INEC had lamented that some of its offices were recently attacked, with many PVCs destroyed.
He argued that since the electoral body had already issued temporary voters card/registration slips, persons whose PVCs were affected in the said attacks, should in the event that their voters’ cards were not reprinted and collected before the deadline, be allowed to participate in the election.

He told the court that INEC previously disclosed that the BVAS could authenticate electorates by entering of the last six digits of the Voters Identity Number, VIN.

However, INEC, in a counter-affidavit it filed before the court, challenged the competence of the suit, insisting that the legal action was premature, frivolous and speculative.

The electoral body told the court that it has already extended the time within which PVCs could be collected.

While accusing the plaintiffs of failing to supply the court with particulars of the 29million persons they claimed may be disenfranchised, INEC, said the reason it extended the period for PVC collection was that so many fresh ones, especially in areas that were attacked, have been reproduced and ready for collection.

INEC maintained that the PVC is critical to its planned accreditation process, stressing that unlike in previous elections where it allowed eligible electorates that had issues with accreditation to vote after filing the Incident Form, it said in the impending elections, only those with PVCs that were duly authenticated with the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System, BVAS, would be allowed to cast their ballot.

It further refused the plaintiffs’ claim that the BVAS use last 6 digits of VIN.

In her judgement on the matter, Justice Nyako noted that INEC has been asking registered voters to approach its offices for their PVCs.

She held that the plaintiffs failed to disclose the number of PVCs that have not been collected by registers voters, adding that since the Electoral Act made provision for the use of “technological device” for the election, INEC, could still make room for alternative means of voting.

The court, therefore, agreed with INEC’s position that the suit was premature.

Justice Nyako held that instead of dismissing the suit, she would only strike it out to pave way for the Plaintiffs to re-approach the court again on the same subject matter.