The Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT) sitting in Abuja has rejected an application filed by the candidate of the Labour Party (LP), Peter Obi, seeking to question the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on the technology deployed for the conduct of the February 25 polls.
Obi had in the application, prayed the tribunal to compel INEC to answer 12 key questions he listed on an interrogatory he filed on May 22.
The former Anambra State governor wants INEC to disclose the date it conducted the functionality test on the purported improved technological system it deployed for the elections, as well as the names and details of those that conducted the test.
He equally urged the court to compel INEC to supply answers to the following questions; “Who created/deployed the four (4) Applications Patches/Updates to fix the HTTP 500 error that prevented the e-transmission of the results of the Presidential election on 25th February 2023?
READ ALSO: Tinubu’s Lawyers, INEC Object As Peter Obi, LP Present Channels TV Reporter As Witness At Tribunal
“What was the exact time of the occurrence of the technical glitch which prevented the e-transmission of the result of the Presidential election on 25th February 2023?
“What time were the technological glitches fixed and or repaired?
“What percentage of the result of the Presidential election was uploaded on the I-Rev on 25th February 2023?
“What percentage of the result of the Presidential election was uploaded on the I-Rev as at the time of the declaration of the Result of the Presidential election on 1st March 2023?
“If the Presidential Election was conducted concurrently with the National Assembly Elections on the same day and at the same time using the same technological devices, why were there glitches only with respect to the Presidential Election?”
However, all respondents (INEC, All Progressives Congress, Bola Tinubu, and Kashim Shettima) urged the court to dismiss the application for want of competence.
Justice Haruna Tsammani-led five-member panel, ruling on the application on Saturday, struck out the application on the premise that it was filed outside the pre-hearing period.
