Abuja: A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, JB Daudu, SAN, has called on the National Assembly to refrain from altering the current provision regarding the burden of proof in election disputes as it considers amendments to the electoral act.

According to News Agency of Nigeria, Daudu made his remarks during an interview at a send-forth ceremony honoring the 42nd Set of Externs at his office in Abuja. He expressed concerns over the National Assembly’s proposal that would require the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to assume the burden of proof in verifying the validity of elections. Daudu emphasized that the petitioner should retain this responsibility to maintain the integrity and neutrality of INEC.

Daudu argued that compelling INEC to shoulder the burden of proof could compromise its role as an impartial entity in the electoral process. He highlighted that INEC’s duty is to act without bias, and assuming such a burden could lead to perceptions of partiality. He warned that this shift in responsibility could lead to a scenario where elected officials expect INEC to defend election outcomes against petitions, rather than taking an active role themselves.

The senior advocate further noted that the law currently presumes election results declared by INEC to be correct, placing the onus on petitioners to present credible evidence to challenge the results. He questioned the logic of reversing this burden, suggesting that such a move would undermine the established standards of proof required in electoral disputes.

Daudu also addressed the practical implications of the proposed change, pointing out that INEC would be overwhelmed by the demands of providing election materials for free in response to petitions. He stressed that the current system, which allows litigants to obtain certified copies of election materials upon payment, is crucial for maintaining order and transparency in election petitions.

The legal expert concluded by questioning the rationale behind shifting the burden of proof to INEC, given the existing mechanisms for transparency and accountability in the electoral process. He urged stakeholders to consider the broader implications of such a legislative change on the electoral architecture and the role of the judiciary in resolving electoral disputes.