Atiku Abubakar, the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), has accused the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) of using a third-party device to manipulate the results of the February 25 presidential election in favor of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and its candidate, Bola Tinubu.
In a 66-page petition submitted to the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) at the Court of Appeal in Abuja, Atiku alleged that INEC had redeployed its in-house ICT expert, Mr. Chidi Nwafor, and replaced him with an IT Consultant who helped to install the third-party mechanism before the election.
Atiku Abubakar further claimed that the IT Consultant, Mr. Suleiman Farouk, facilitated the third-party device to act as an intermediary between the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) and the IRev Portal, which is also known as the Device Management System (DMS).
According to Atiku, the DMS software allowed INEC’s IT Security Consultant, Mr. Farouk, to remotely control, monitor, and filter data transmitted from the BVAS devices to the electronic collation system and the IRev platform.
“The 1st Respondent (INEC) engaged an appointee of the 2nd Respondent (INEC) 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 contrary to the original design of the BVAS machine to upload data directly to the electronic collation system and the IReV portal, 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 1st Respondent used the said Device Management System to manipulate the Election results in favour of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents.
“The Petitioners state and shall lead expert evidence to show the critical components of the 1st Respondent’s Information and Communications Technology (ICT), including but not limited to the BVAS which is an Android Device manufactured by Emperor Technologies China and supplied to the 1st Respondent by Activate Nigeria Limited.
The software used on the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS), known as the Voter Accreditation System (VAS), was previously created and set up in-house by the ICT Team of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), led by Mr. Chidi Nwafor.
“The VAS was subsequently handed over to Emperor Technology China prior to the Presidential Election and they then preconfigured and installed the software on the BVAS before supplying the devices to the 1st Respondent through Activate Nigeria Limited.
“As it relates to the IReV, the INEC Result Viewing Portal (IReV) is a web-based data entry and aggregation portal designed also by Chidi Nwafor’s team and is hosted on Amazon Web Service (AWS).
“The server system for the device and the portal are hosted on Amazon Web Service (AWS) URL:dashboard.ivasportal.com/dash”, he added.
Besides, Atiku, who came second in the presidential election, in the petition he filed alongside his party, PDP, maintained that INEC, having set the parameters of the poll, “did not ensure compliance with the electronic transmission of accreditation data and results in the Election to create opportunity for manipulation of figures to the advantage of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents”.
During the hearing of the petition, the petitioners plan to present evidence to demonstrate that technical issues did not prevent the upload and transmission of polling unit results and accreditation data of the Presidential Election to the electronic collation system and the IReV portal.
They alleged that what happened was “the non-adherence to the system through a command and control element activated by a pre-programmed design to limit user-privileges of the front-end users of the BVAS machines at the polling units with respect to Presidential Election results while releasing user privileges in respect of the National Assembly election windows, by selectively withholding correct passwords and/or issuing wrong passwords through the use of the Device Management System equipment aforesaid”.
The petitioners argued that INEC’s claim of server failure was unfounded, and they plan to present evidence to prove that the server was cloud-based. In the unlikely event of a challenge, Amazon Web Service would have smoothly switched to another server without any issues. This is due to the autoscaling groups with multiple network reception and offline upload options.
“The Petitioners contend that the technology system deployed by the 1st Respondent underwent Quality Assurance Tests (“QAT”) before acquisition and deployment.
“The 1st Respondent is hereby given the notice to produce the QAT Report that was prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) as well as the Report of Vulnerability Assessment & Penetration Testing (VAPT) by Consultant Suleiman Farouk of Sulfman Consulting Limited and all other subsequent and related reports on the system.
“The Petitioners contend that the so-called “glitch” was a bypass to tilt and switch the results of the Presidential Election in favour of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents”, they added.
Additionally, the petitioners stated that they would subpoena several individuals to testify in court, including PWC, expert witnesses knowledgeable about the electronic collation system and the IReV portal, and Kaspersky Endpoint Security (located in Thornhill Office Park, Bekker Road, Midrand, South Africa), which provided system security for the BVAS and e-transmission system used by INEC. They also plan to subpoena Globacom Nigeria Limited, the internet provider for the INEC system, which disconnected the internet from the BVAS machines before transmission.
“The Petitioners shall also call evidence of statisticians, forensic examiners, fingerprint and ICT experts at the hearing of the Petition to establish that the figures/scores awarded the 2nd Respondent were not the product of valid votes actually cast but were mere allocation by the 1st Respondent, and the summation of the result declared is inconsistent with and cannot be reconciled with the number of duly accredited voters.
“The Petitioners plead and shall rely on BVAS reports, the results sheets of the polling units, wards, local governments, States and the national manually collated results and electronic video recordings of several acts of infractions of the electoral process by the Respondents”, they added.
According to Atiku and his party, INEC had not transmitted and uploaded the complete results and accreditation data from polling units as of March 1, when Tinubu was declared the winner of the election.
“The Petitioners contend that the 1st Respondent is in clear breach of the provisions of the law under Sections 60 and 64(4) and (5) of the Electoral Act 2022 by failing to use the BVAS to transmit the Election results at the polling units and the accreditation data therefrom to the electronic collation system and the IRev Portal. Despite the failure to so transmit and several complaints for review, the 1st Respondent’s Chairman refused all entreaties and applications for the suspension of the collation exercise and a review of the complaints before declaring a winner of the Election and repeatedly off-handedly dared the Petitioners to go to Court.
“The Petitioners contend that contrary to the provisions of the 1st Respondent’s Regulations and Manual which stipulate the transmission of both accreditation data and the polling units results from the BVAS directly and real-time to the electronic collation system and the IReV portal, the 1st Respondent introduced a device manager called Collation Support and Results Verification System (CSRVS), with which the results from the polling units were quarantined prior to transmission to the IReV portal, leaving room for the 1st Respondent to upload wrong results”.
Atiku also argued that Tinubu did not meet the constitutional requirement of securing at least one-quarter of the votes cast in the presidential election in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. He pointed out that out of the total votes of 478,652 cast in the FCT, Tinubu was only ascribed 90,902 votes, which is 18.99% of the total votes cast.
“The Petitioners shall contend that to be declared duly elected, a candidate, in addition to obtaining not less than a quarter (25%) of the votes cast in at least two-thirds of all the States, must also receive at least one quarter (25%) of the votes cast in the FCT, Abuja, this being an additional requirement introduced by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the said Constitution having clearly distinguished the FCT, Abuja as a separate entity by the specific and express mention”.
“The Petitioners further aver that all over Nigeria there were manifest cases of over-voting. The total of the affected polling units in the various States are set out in the Statisticians Report pleaded and relied upon by the Petitioners”.
Atiku and his party are requesting that the court declare that Tinubu was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes cast in the election. They argue that the declaration and his return by INEC as the winner of the Presidential Election was unlawful, wrongful, unconstitutional, undue, null and void, and should be considered of no effect whatsoever.
“That it may be determined that the 2nd Respondent was at the time of the election not qualified to contest the said election”.
In the alternative, Atiku and his party are requesting that the court declare Atiku as the winner of the presidential election, having scored the majority of lawful votes cast. They want Atiku to be sworn in as the duly elected President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Alternatively, they are requesting the court to direct INEC to conduct a second election (run-off) between Atiku and Tinubu.
In their further alternative prayer, the petitioners are urging the court to nullify the presidential election and order a re-run.
