The law says that INEC shall prescribe the manner of transfer of results. INEC in obedience to the law prescribed in its Guidelines (the constitutional process by which INEC is allowed to implement its role) that it will do so electronically.
There were rumors that INEC intended to abandon the manner of transfer it had prescribed. INEC came out publicly and strongly debunked it as false. The country went to vote based on this background.
There’s what is called the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations in law. A public institution that makes assurances that it will act in a particular way, should be held accountable to act in that manner.
I have read the view of those who argue that INEC has a discretion. The questions they should answer are: 1. Did INEC exercise this discretion regarding the mode of transmission? If it did, what mode did INEC prescribe? 2. Did INEC at any time amend its Guidelines or even state by a public statement that it will no longer transmit results electronically?
You cannot talk about discretion in the manner of transfer or transmission without first acknowledging that there’s a legal obligation to transfer results.
More importantly, whatever mode is adopted by INEC, it has to be one that makes it possible to transmit DIRECTLY FROM POLLING UNITS.
Public funds was voted for this. INEC rested the integrity of the whole election on the use of BVAS for accreditation and transmission of results.
Yet, INEC has not been condemned or even criticized for violating its own Guidelines and promises. I don’t believe that this is how a country that wants to be taken seriously is supposed to act.
