Will Supreme Court Judgment On Wike On Card Reader Be Relevant In Atiku's Case?

The noise on Supreme Court ruling in Wike Vs Peterside Dakuku on the real winner of the Rivers Guber in 2015 was quoted in many quarters as the likely verdict in Atiku VS Buhari's case but it seems this is not likely as many waters have passed under the bridge between 2015 and 2019. Atiku is standing on the Electoral Law backing of the Smart Card Reader which was non existence in 2015. However, I am not a lawyer but I need legal luminaries in the house to give an elaborate interpretations to this hotly debated topic. 

Below is Supreme Court reasons for ignoring the Smart Card Reader for manual collation in 2015:

Supreme Court gives reasons for upholding Wike’s election as Rivers Governor!

DAILY POST reports that the crux of the judgment is that the trial tribunal and the lower appeal court were wrongly swayed by INEC guideline on the use of card readers for the election.

The court also said that the trial tribunal denied Wike fair hearing when it was hearing the petition.

It held that while it commends INEC for the introduction of card readers, the innovation, however, cannot supersede the voters register.

The court said that extant laws of the federation provides for the use of voters register but the card reader irrespective of its importance does not have a place in any extant law of the land.

Hence it said that the tribunal was wrong to base it judgment on non compliance with the use of card readers.

It advised INEC to approach the National Assembly for an amendment to incorporate the use of card readers in the law of the land.

On the issue of allegation of violence and hijacking, the court held that Dakuku was not able to prove beyond reasonable doubt because he failed to bring in witnesses from all the polling units to substantiate the claims.

The court also held that for peterside to prove non accreditation, he ought to have tendered the voters register and then demonstrate it.

The court said that the voters register could not be jettisoned for the card reader because it has a place in law while the card reader doesn’t.

The court also held that the tribunal and the lower court were unduly swayed by INEC’s directive on card reader usage during the election, adding that it cannot supersede the voters register.

However, the court while noting that INEC is empowered to make subsidiary regulations as regards election, said the regulations must not go contrary to constitutional provisions.

On the evidence of INEC staff known as PW40 who described the election as a sham and a mockery of democracy, the court held that his evidence cannot take the place of voters as he himself under cross exermination did not say that he personally witnessed any violence but depended on hearsay.

Finally the court held that to warrant nullification of an election, a petitioner has to prove that there was substantial non-compliance in all polling units, adding that they failed to bring the issue within this parametre.

The court commended INEC for its innovation of the smart card readers but was quick to add that validation of voting process through the use of voters register takes precedent over any other process for now.