Background
This case pertains to a gubernatorial election in Rivers State, where the appellant, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), declared Dr. Dakuku Adol Peterside of the All Progressive Congress (APC) the winner. The 1st and 2nd respondents, Wike Ezenwo Nyesom from the Peoples' Democratic Party (PDP), contested the results, alleging that Peterside was not duly elected.
They claimed substantial non-compliance with the Electoral Act due to INEC's failure to use electronic smart card readers for voter accreditation, which they cited as corrupt practices affecting the election’s outcome. Consequently, they sought the nullification of the election results.
Issues
The critical issue before the Supreme Court was whether INEC's failure to use electronic smart card readers in voter accreditation constituted a valid ground for challenging the election results. Other concerns included aspects of compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act and whether the election was indeed conducted in a lawful manner.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court held that the failure to use electronic smart card readers did not amount to substantial non-compliance with the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended). The relevant sections of the act highlighted the grounds for questioning an election, and it was established that such a failure did not per se invalidate the election results.
Court Findings
The court found that while the electronic smart card readers were innovative tools intended to enhance the election process, their non-use in these particular circumstances did not breach any legislative provisions. The justices highlighted that the traditional methods stipulated in the Electoral Act were still applicable and that the processes could continue through manual verification if technology failed, which was legally acceptable.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court ultimately allowed INEC's appeal, reinstating Dr. Dakuku Adol Peterside as the duly elected Governor of Rivers State. The court emphasized that just because some aspects of the accreditation process were not followed to the letter did not amount to the substantial non-compliance that could warrant nullifying the election results.
Significance
This ruling clarifies the legal interpretation surrounding the use of electronic processes in elections and reaffirms that strict adherence to procedural innovations, such as smart card readers, should not overshadow established electoral law provisions. The verdict reinforces the notion that the integrity of an election is determined by conforming to the rules outlined in the Electoral Act, rather than the adherence to supplementary guidelines issued by electoral bodies.