Candidate drags NBA to court over e-voting, disqualification

Candidate drags NBA to court over e-voting, disqualification

The Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, may be heading for another crisis, reminiscence of the 90 crisis, as a candidate for the 2016 general elections,  Mr. John Unachukwu, has dragged the body to court, seeking to have the poll shifted to July 30 and 31, further shifted
pending the hearing and determination of his suit before an Abuja High Court.

Mr Unachukwu in the suit, is also challenging his disqualification from
the elections, praying the court to determine, “Whether the plaintiff’s
employment as a Judicial Editor of a private Newspaper, means he is not engaged in private legal practice, as contemplated by Section 8(3)
(b) of the NBA Constitution, 2015?”

He is also challenging the internet voting introduced by the association, praying the court to determine “Whether the NBA’s
constitution 2015, requires or even recognises Internet Voting or Voting over Internet (I-voting) in the 2016 NBA general elections as currently proposed by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants."

At the hearing in the matter on Thursday, the court adjourned till July 19, to hear the suit.

Trial judge in the matter is Justice M. E. Anenih.

Defendants in the suit are Registered Trustees of the NBA, NBA
President Augustine Alegeh, SAN, Chairman Electoral Committee of
the NBA Ken Mozia, SAN, Chief J-K Gadzama, SAN and A.B Mahmoud,
SAN. Alegeh.

The plaintiff in the suit is asking the court to restrain the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants, their agents employees, proxies and anybody acting on their behalf, from conducting the NBA National Officers’ Election by Internet Voting (I-voting) on July 30 and 31, 2016 or any other date pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.

The plaintiff is praying the court to determine “Whether the NBA’s
constitution 2015, requires or even recognises Internet Voting or Voting over Internet (I-voting) in the 2016 NBA General Elections as currently proposed by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants.

“Whether the Electoral Committee of the NBA (“ECNBA”) can rightly judge and correctly conclude, that the state of available technology and the information technology infrastructure of all branches of the NBA can adequately support Voting over Internet (I-voting) at the 2016 NBA
general elections?”

He is contending that “If question 2 is answered in the negative, whether it is just and proper to conduct the 2016 NBA general elections by Voting over Internet (I-voting), in view especially of the
principle of universal suffrage enshrined in Section 9(4) of the NBA
constitution?

“If the question is answered in the affirmative, whether the risks
associated with a wrong exercise of judgment or an incorrect conclusion by the ECNBA, does not negate and therefore, constitute a violation of, the spirit and purpose of NBA constitutional provisions regarding universal suffrage?

“Whether the effective guarantee and observance of every eligible lawyer’s right to vote behind the principle of universal suffrage does not outweigh any time saving or cost cutting concerns behind the adoption of Voting over Internet (I-voting)?

“Whether in view of the complete absence of voting over internet (I-voting), in the recently concluded branch elections and in light of the state of available information technology infrastructure in branches across the country, it is just and proper for the ECNBA to insist on
voting over Internet (I-voting) as the only legally acceptable form of voting in all branches of the NBA in the 2016 NBA general elections?

“Whether the plaintiff’s employment as a judicial editor of a private Newspaper, means he is not engaged in private legal practice, as contemplated by Section 8(3)(b) of the NBA Constitution, 2015?”

He is consequently asking the court to declare that the system of voting over Internet or Internet Voting (I-voting) proposed by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants for the 2016 NBA general elections is contrary to, and ultra vires their powers under; relevant provisions of the NBA constitution.

“An order of the court upholding the principle of universal suffrage enshrined in the NBA constitution by suspending the use of Voting over Internet (I-voting) and ordering the adoption of electronic voting
(with paper ballot backup) for all branches across the country in the 2016 NBA general elections.

“An order of the court guaranteeing the meaningful exercise of universal suffrage, by directing the ECNBA, to issue guidelines stipulating that the e-voting for the 2016 NBA general elections be
conducted in all branches of the NBA and that results be collated at branch level before transmitting same to the Secretariat.

“An order of the court nullifying the decision of the ECNBA which
disqualified the plaintiff and declare the plaintiff the sole candidate for
the office of National Publicity Secretary of the NBA in the 2016 general elections.

“An order of the court, upholding the principle of universal suffrage enshrined in the NBA Constitution, by directing the ECNBA to issue guidelines allowing the use of manual voting alone, in branches of the NBA where available information technology infrastructure is clearly
inadequate.”

The court, meanwhile granted plaintiff’s motion that the defendants be served by substituted service to appear before the court on Tuesday for continuation of hearing.