 Well, many pundits have said it's a fight to finish in Lagos, Bauchi, Kaduna, Gombe, Delta, Damawa, Rivers, Kanu, Eboni, Enugu, Oggun, Oyo, Sokoto, Nassarawa, as 11 governors raised for a second term. As Nigerians go to the poll again tomorrow for the governorship and state assembly elections in 28 states, this round of elections, just like the February 25 presidential and national assembly elections, will throw up more surprises, which would further question the nature of dominance of the governing all-progressive Congress APC and the People's Democratic Party PDP, the main opposition in Nigeria's political space. In tomorrow's election, 837 governorship candidates will slug it out in the 28 states, while 10,240 others will battle for 993 state assembly seats in 1,021 constituencies across the country. Of the 28 states that are due to vote for governors, 17 serving governors are departing. These are governors of Taraba, Benwe, Enugu, Eboni, Abia, Cross River, Delta, Aqaibon, Rivers, Kebi, Sokoto, Kaduna, Katsina, Kanu, Jigawa, Plateau, and of course, Niger states. However, 11 others are standing for re-election, namely Lagos, Oggun, Oyo, Quara, Zamfara, Umbi, Nassarawa, Yobi, Burnu, Adamawa, and Bauti states. This is an election circle like no other in Nigerian history, with no fewer than 20 incumbent governors failing to deliver their parties during the presidential and national assembly elections and seven incumbent governors losing their senatorial bids, unlike in 2019 when 20 former governors were elected into the ninth national assembly. While joining us to discuss this, expectations in the following or the forthcoming election is Shagun Shokwitan, a public affairs analyst. That's how I would like to leave it this evening, describing him. We'll be joined later by Reverend Father Raymond Anolie Fourada, Director of Justice, Development and Peace Center, JDPC, Lagos. And also, we have Moe Oyo standing by also, who is a technology executive. Thank you so much, Mr. Shokwitan, for joining us on the show. Thanks for having me. And Oyo, thank you for being there for us this evening. Thank you, Yamgo. Okay. Now, a lot of people are saying that the credibility of the elections can be traced to the fact that so many governors lost their states to the opposition and so many people that are incumbent lost their seats. The senators and the National House of Assembly members. And that's what they're using to say that the election was good enough. What do you say? That will be a grievous mistake. If you are trying to assess the success or otherwise of a process, you don't look at the outcome. Because if you look at the outcome, you might miss the lessons in the process. And so, to say that, for example, that because legal states was lost to the Labor Party in the presidential elections would be an evidence that the elections were credible and free and fair, belittles the enormity of the challenges that we faced during that election. So I don't agree with that point of view. I think that we have to leave the outcome and focus on the process. And if you do that, then you have to ask INEC very, very fundamental questions with regards. I mean, you know, the narrative is out there. It's even in court as we speak with regards to their failing to follow the provisions of their guidelines. Those guidelines were drafted in accordance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022, which empowered them to draft them. Now, having drafted those guidelines, I've heard those arguments that say, well, INEC is a liberty to use electronic transmission or to use the beavers or not. But I beg to disagree, you know, because the guidelines were drafted in accordance to a law and therefore draws their powers from that law and therefore become law in themselves. So as an umpire, you can't draft a set of rules, and then when you blow the whistle for the game to start, you change the rules, you know, and that's exactly what INEC did. I know that they claim that, you know, those changes happened as a result of some glitches and some technical difficulties they might have had, you know, with transmission of results and uploading to IREV and all of that. But that's neither, that's, it's for them to prove right now. As far as Nigerians are concerned, they did not follow the guidelines. They themselves laid out and that calls to question the credibility of the entire process, especially when you realize that those things that were omitted or skipped were the very safeguards that guaranteed the credibility of the process and the outcome. So if you've skipped the guarantees and the safeguards, then how can we know that this process was credible? Well, tomorrow is another election and there's a lot to talk about. Let me come to you, OO. You are the technology expert, INEC, and the NCC, that is the Nigerian Communications Commission, has claimed that more than nine million hacks were tried on the servers, especially on election day, we had more than six million people trying to hack, or there were six, more than six million attempts to hack the server of INEC. And some experts have come out to say that is a blatant lie, that it couldn't have happened that way. But whenever we talk to INEC or talk about INEC and their failure from the point of view of a lot of Nigerians, their failure to deliver on election day, they always complain that it is the technological factor that caused it. It couldn't have been that they wanted to do that. So tell us how far, how much this technology could have worked, and the likely glitches that were supposed to happen or could have happened on that day to make them not able to upload, especially the presidential results, because the National Assembly results were uploaded in most places, but the presidential results are the ones that we are quarreling about. A lot of people are quarreling about. So these things they are talking about, hacking their system or trying to hack their system up to more than six million in one day, is that a possibility? And how far can an instrument like that, a machine like that, work in an election day or under pressure? Yes, it's easy to throw statistics around. It's actually laughable. But I don't want to seem like I'm being antagonistic. So I don't think I would like to comment so much to say that it's not feasible. If it was, if it happened, then it would have broken all the records in the world. The reality is this, transparency is key. And that's what technology helps. Technology cannot replace human intent. Technology is there to optimize efficiency of a process. The reality is for whatever reason, coincidentally, like you pointed out, only the presidential elections seem to have challenges and issues. And they were not forthcoming on why or what happened. The beavers, which people think is a, there are two systems. There's the beavers, which worked very perfectly. The beavers was for the accreditation. However, the IRF had one job, upload images, like millions and billions of people upload pictures on Instagram, weekly, monthly, yearly, Facebook. So the technology to upload is as old as the internet in itself, right? So the excuses they gave, they're not, I wouldn't say they're business less, but they're very highly unlikely. The challenge we have is challenge of transparency. We do not know the organizations. We do not know the process through which the organizations who were handling these systems were selected. Are they competent? Remember, the IRF technology is as basic as it can be. It's just to upload. It had one single job, and it failed at it. But curiously, I voted in the Southeast past of Nigeria. And they didn't have internet on the devices. I don't think the hackers wiped their data plans. Some of them didn't have SIM cards or were not ready. They were not built to do the job or the task they were meant to do. So if there was an audit of what happened and they came out to be transparent about it, they would be able to fix it. But if there's no honesty, then there's no technology that can deal with that. OK, let me just stay with you a moment now. Before tomorrow, before now, there was an outcry. And the opposition was saying that they should not temper with the BVAS, because the data in it might be tempered with. But they wanted to reconfigure it so that they can use it for the governorship election. And when we try to say, OK, why did you have to go that way? You should have maybe postponed the elections until the inspection of these materials was done and all that. They say there's no cause for alarm. Is that true? Or there's a possibility that information on the BVAS machine could be tampered with in trying to reconfigure this for the tomorrow election? What has been lost is trust, right? And technology can solve for that. The BVAS machine they talk about is just an Android tablet or the IRF machine. It's just an Android tablet with a fancy name. And an Android tablet, as you know, can store, depending on the size of the storage, can store thousands and thousands of images, talk less of text. The BVAS takes, authenticates your identity and places a number on it. So it stores digits. Even your Nokia 310 could store thousands of digits. So storage-wise, you do not need to wipe out previous numbers. So a polling unit that has a complete computer that is storing the value 110 can store literally millions of that type of three-digit numbers. So you do not need to reconfigure it. However, there might be technical reasons why they would like to reformat the device before utilizing it for the second time. In that case, they should be backed up. However, like I said, trust has been lost. So the ability for something to be done doesn't translate to the willingness for the thing to be done. So as it were, everyone would be suspicious of what would happen. Would you say that the millions of hacks have wiped out the records? So as a result of that, people would not trust that they would keep the system as authentic as it should be. So that's the challenge. I think that's the main issue we are looking at, a lack of trust, not a lack of technology capacity. OK, thank you. We'll come back to you in due course. And I'm still here with Che Gueaux-Chocqueton. But we'll take a short break. And when we return, we'll continue this discussion. We're really focusing on tomorrow's election and how much is going to be successful and how much confidence that people have in the process. Stay with us.