The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has confirmed that result being paraded by Atiku Abubakar, PDP’s presidential candidate in the 2019 presidential election is ‘fake’.
According to the electoral umpire, Atiku manufactured results of the last presidential election to prove his case at the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal.
The information is contained in the response INEC filed on Thursday at the tribunal in Abuja.
It distanced itself from an electronic sheet that purportedly contained the genuine results of the presidential election.
Atiku’s legal team submitted the sheet at the tribunal last month, contending it was obtained from an internal compilation of results on INEC’s Internet server.
The former vice president in his petition before tribunal, had claimed he defeated President Muhammadu Buhari by 1,615,302 votes but that the result announced by INEC in favour of incumbent President Muhammadu Buhari was manipulated.
According to INEC, ”It does not share information with such an unclassified entity and any information purportedly derived therefrom which does not accord with the result as declared by INEC is not authentic but rather was invented for the purpose” of the tribunal.
In the 291-page response, INEC also said it did not transmit results via electronic channels, but used manual collation as stipulated by law.
INEC said, “Further to the foregoing, the website described as www.factsdontlieng.com was neither created nor owned by the 1st Respondent (INEC). It is a site not known to the 1st Respondent.
“The 1st Respondent does not share information with such an unclassified entity and any information purportedly derived therefrom which does not accord with the result as declared by the 1st Respondent is not authentic but rather was invented for the purpose of this case.”
INEC specifically denies the existence of electronic transmission of results in the presidential election.
It said, “The 1st Respondent (INEC) did not adopt electronic transmission or collation of results in the conduct of the election, voting by electronic means not having been adopted as a provision of the Electoral Act. The 1st Respondent specifically denies the existence of electronic transmission of results as it is unknown to the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) and Regulations and Guidelines for the conduct of the elections, 2019, and put the Petitioners to the strictest of proof thereof.”