BY JOHNBOSCO AGBAKWURU

ABUJA — THE Bill to make the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, take the responsibility of proving the conduct  and regularity of elections in the country before the Election Petitions Tribunal or the court, yesterday, scaled through second reading.

File: Voter casting her vote

The Bill, if eventually passed into law, would now place the burden of proof of elections on the shoulders of the INEC, instead of the litigants and also reduce the difficulties petitioners normally face while trying to get the necessary documentary evidence in support of their petitions.

The Bill attracted divisions among the senators as some argued that the Evidence Act and Electoral Act had categorically stated that the onus of proof should be the responsibility of the petitioner and not the electoral umpire.

Sponsor of the Bill and senator representing Katsina North senatorial district, Senator Hadi Abubakar Sirika, in his lead debate, entitled, ‘A Bill for an Act to amend the Electoral Act 2010 to give additional powers to INEC 2014,’ argued that the process to prove regularity of elections in the country by the petitioners had become very cumbersome.

Senator Sirika stated:   “It is not in doubt that the process of proving the regularity or otherwise of the conduct of an election is one process that is highly burdensome and ought not to be placed or vested on the petitioner, who did not conduct the election, but only participated in it.

“The onus of proving the regularity of an election ought to be a burden to be discharged by the body or organisation that prepared and arranged for the conduct of that election and thereafter went ahead to conduct the said election.

“It is settled under the law of evidence that “he who asserts must prove.”

However, this bill seeks otherwise, that is, that the burden of proof of the regularity of the conduct of an election must first of all shift to the body that conducted the election.

“The burden of first proof having been discharged by INEC, will then shift to the petitioner who alleged that the election was not properly conducted. I am encouraged to reason that if this bill becomes a law, it will shorten litigation time, make INEC live up to its responsibility and promote transparency.”

Senator Sirika noted that the proposed amendment, which was in respect of Section 2 (a)-(c) of the Principal Act, sought to introduce a new paragraph “d” and should be stated thus; “(d) (INEC) shall bear the responsibility of first establishing the regularity of any election which the commission may conduct under the provision of the constitution in any election matter before a court or tribunal.”

Though the bill scaled through second reading, Senator Heneiken Lokpobiri, Bayelsa West, opposed it as he argued that passing the bill would mean the amendment of the Evidence Act would not be easy to achieve.

He said the proposed amendment was “unmeritorious, misconceived and should be thrown to the dust-bin.”

Also opposing the amendment, Senator James Manager, PDP, Delta South, stated that if the proposed bill passed through, it would affect the nation’s jurisprudence which is the foundation of the country’s legal system, stressing that the current Evidence Act was applicable to all cases.

Senator Manager said the Evidence Act remained the law and that if a litigant complained about something and dragged INEC to court or the tribunal, it was his responsibility to prove it.

He added that at this stage of the country’s nascent democracy, it was not good to take everything at the same time.

Senator Joshua Lidani, Gombe South, said it was the litigant that should show evidence and that the bill was against the jurisprudence of the country.

According to him, the bill will contradict the Evidence Act if passed.

He further stated that the proposed amendment was unpractical and would create a deluge of litigation as everybody would like to go to court or tribunal, including those who did not participate in the election

Senator Victor Lar, Plateau North, said the bill was off tangent and would not be in the interest of even the senators to get the burden of proof shifted to INEC.