TheOldGods:
but it's not 3 states brother. Let's do the maths together can we. Remove Lagos, remove imo, remove porthcourt, remove nasarawa, remove benue, remove akwaibom, remove platue, remove fct, remove kogi and ekiti, what about edo and Benin? Is tinubu still winning sire?

Just continue removing till you get the results you want but don't try to remove Imo ,Anambra or Enugu

Makes sense

TheOldGods:
but it's not 3 states brother. Let's do the maths together can we. Remove Lagos, remove imo, remove porthcourt, remove nasarawa, remove benue, remove akwaibom, remove platue, remove fct, remove kogi and ekiti, what about edo and Benin? Is tinubu still winning sire?

If you remove all these, Peter obi will still come 3rd.

Oyo ondo ogun Osun kano kaduna Kwara voted tinubu massively

So if u remove those states you mentioned, it means 5 states is left for obi... U said we shud removed 7 states out of 12 dt he won... It remains 5. The votes in those 5 states can't give obi victory

Tinubu votes till beats him hands down

senatordave1:


It is simple.transmission can be manual or electronic.not transmitting it electronically does not invalidate the result.non transmission invalidates the results

I don't know why you are not objective in your contribution, how can you transmit result from polling unit without electronic transmission. INEC itself stated categorically in support of this, defended it by the chairman himself, provide instrument to achieve this, BVAS, anything outside this is pure manipulation, any one that will win must achieve this under transparent manner.

benjaminlawson:


I don't know why you are not objective in your contribution, how can you transmit result from polling unit without electronic transmission. INEC itself stated categorically in support of this, defended it by the chairman himself, provide instrument to achieve this, BVAS, anything outside this is pure manipulation, any one that will win must achieve this under transparent manner.

Non transmission by electronic means can never void any election

BluntCrazeMan:
You got my argument..



It's as if na only you that clearly understood what I was trying to say all these while..

They Directly transmitted results (and accreditation data) was supposed to be a secondary (hidden -- but a supposedly more authentic and untampered) result which is supposed to be used to verify the normal collation done by the collation officers..


However they transmitted it and instantly deploy its use whenever it is needed to settle collation disputes, is nobody’s business,, but it must transmitted directly from the Polling Units,, and be used for verifications, and for whenever there are disputes in the collation process..




Thus, INEC didn't transmit results directly from the Polling-Units,, neither did they use such directly transmitted results (if at-all they claim that they did) to settle all the disputes that were raised...
They didn't settle any dispute at any point in the collation process.

THE INEC CLEARLY FLOUTED THE ELECTORAL ACT..

Thank You So Much For Understanding The Whole Narrative..

You lie.at the point results were disputed by melaye,some results were on the portal.the dispute resolution the electoral act was talking about was at the ward and lga collation.how do you now know that disputes were not raised at that stage and resolved?

BluntCrazeMan:
Thanks so much..

Someone said that the INEC GUIDELINES is totally useless..
That the Supreme-Court said so.

The bolded is very very untrue.

Whynotthetruth:


Meaning that in this case, since the guidelines simply gave details of how the transmission should go is binding because it didn't override the Act rather complemented it or gave more life to it . Hope this is correct Sir

Apt.
100%
Gbam

senatordave1:


You lie.at the point results were disputed by melaye,some results were on the portal.the dispute resolution the electoral act was talking about was at the ward and lga collation.how do you now know that disputes were not raised at that stage and resolved?

You mean that Excel Sheet on the Screen??


AaaahAAHhaahaahahahhhaaaaahahahaaaaahaa...

That thing you saw on the screen were the State Collated Results brought in in form of Soft-copy for the purpose of Nigerians like you and me who would be viewing the process from home.

That thing saw on the Screen was something that waay prepared by the States Collation Officers.., and inserted into the Stand-by computer there..

It is not coming from any DAMNED PORTAL..!!



You talked about resolving disputes at Wards and LGAs?
The ones Dino Melaye was raising, he was brushed down, and Melaye had to start to vigorously requesting for the Polling-Units Results..
So, if he didn't settle the disputes which Melaye raised, right in front of everybody..,, how do you expect me to believe that the collation officers settled all their lower-level disputes??

BluntCrazeMan:
You mean that Excel Sheet on the Screen??


AaaahAAHhaahaahahahhhaaaaahahahaaaaahaa...

That thing you saw on the screen were the State Collated Results brought in in form of Soft-copy for the purpose of Nigerians like you and me who would be viewing the process from home.

That thing saw on the Screen was something that waay prepared by the States Collation Officers.., and inserted into the Stand-by computer there..

[/i]It is not coming from any DAMNED PORTAL..!![/i]

Funny.who is talking of excel sheets? Na today me and fergie001 started using irev? Some results were actually transmitted electronically to the portal in real timw.the problem parties had was that not all results were sent.

The disputes raised by melaye was wrongly done at the wrong platform.any disputes arising from unit results must be settled at ward collation

Boss BluntCrazeMan and I quote:

(3) The presiding officer shall give to the polling agents and the police officer where available a copy each of the completed forms after it has been duly signed as provided under subsection (2).

Is the above for the results sheet? I mean duplicates given to the police and party agents

Counting, recording and transmission of votes
Section 60 of the Electoral Act states that “the presiding officer shall, after counting the votes at the polling unit, enter the votes scored by each candidate in a form to be prescribed by the commission as the case may be”.

More so, section 60 (5) of the Act states that the presiding officer shall transfer the results including total number of accredited voters and the results of the ballot in a manner as prescribed by the commission”. The prescribed manner here is the BVAS, which INEC introduced to ensure that the electoral process is credible. The BVAS was introduced by INEC in line with Section 148 of the Electoral Act, which gives INEC power to make guidelines and regulations to ensure the full effect of the law.

senatordave1:


What does the dictionary mean about transmit

Ask inec abeg

felixawe:

Ask inec abeg

The court always refers to the dictionary

id4sho:
Boss BluntCrazeMan and I quote:

(3) The presiding officer shall give to the polling agents and the police officer where available a copy each of the completed forms after it has been duly signed as provided under subsection (2).

Is the above for the results sheet? I mean duplicates given to the police and party agents

Yess.

It is regarded as an “Original Copy” of the result.

BluntCrazeMan:
Yess.

It is regarded as an “Original Copy” of the result.

Thanks for the enlightenment, make I follow chairman wey Sabi road

Your boy loyal

BluntCrazeMan:
WHAT EXACTLY DID THE ELECTORAL ACT SAY ABOUT THE ELECTION RESULTS.??

***(This piece might be very long, but then, if you really need more insight about the electronic transmission wahalla, and what the Electoral Act really says about it, then you have to try and read through to the end..)

I am going to be dropping the quotes, with little comments after them.



For those that would argue that the INEC Guidelines are not recognised by the Electoral Act.., the Section-148 had provided answers to that argument.

Even though the INEC Guidelines should not override the Electoral Act,, but then, wherever the Electoral Act give powers to the “Commission”, then the words that are contained inside the “INEC Guidelines” and “Manuals” would become the Authentic Law with respect to those sections where the Electoral Act gave powers to the Commission..

---

Refer back to Section-148..
The “INEC Guidelines” fully prescribed the manner for the “Transmission” of the results. Inside the INEC Guidelines, the INEC made it very clear that they developed a system known as the “Collation Support and Result Verification System” (CSRVS), in order facilitate the “TRANSMISSION” of Results and Accreditation Data.

It should be made very clear at this point; that the Online Results-Viewing Portal (IREV) is just the platform for the public to view the supposed Polling-Units Results that were uploaded to the online viewing portal,, AND NOT THE REQUIRED PLATFORM WHICH THE INEC DEDICATED FOR THE ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION AND COLLATION AND VERIFICATION OF RESULTS, AS POINTED OUT INSIDE THE ELECTORAL ACT.

The platform for the E-transmission and E-collation as required by the Electoral Act is the CSRVS, and not really the IREV.




The Commission, as referred to in this Act, is the INEC.

Refer back to Section-148..
The INEC fully prescribed the manner for the “Transfer” of the results (including the “transfer” of the total number of accredited voters) inside the INEC Guidelines.



Take note of the word “Deliver” in the Section-62(1); which is totally different from the word “Transfer” which was used in Section-60(5)..

***(This might be the ONLY part of the Electoral Act which the INEC-Chairman read, and believed that the Electoral Act provided for ONLY the Manual Delivery of the Results)..

Also note that the Electoral Act also didn't expressly dictate the exact methods of collation to be deployed.
But then, no matter the method of Collation used,, Section-64 should be checks-and-balances tool which must be applied.
And there is a strong penalty for violating Section-64.


NOW, LET US TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT SECTION-64..


A result -- According to Section-64(9) -- is regarded as “False Result” if it didn't follow the procedures specified in Section-64(6)-(a-to-d).. -- which is, Electronic Transmission and Collation, and Verification.




Going by Section-65(1):
It simply means that the returning officer can upturn the decisions of the Presiding Officer, or those of the collation officers if -- within the review period -- there were errors which the returning officer had corrected.











I PURPOSELY DID NOT DROP ANY QUOTES FROM THE “INEC GUIDELINES”..
SO THAT WE WON'T CONFUSE OURSELVES..

ALL THE QUOTES WHICH I HAVE DROPPED HERE ARE ALL QUOTED ENTIRELY FROM THE ELECTORAL ACT OF 2022.

Add this one also

I wonder how INEC want to Appeal itself in court

senatordave1:


Funny.who is talking of excel sheets? Na today me and fergie001 started using irev? Some results were actually transmitted electronically to the portal in real timw. the problem parties had was that not all results were sent.

The disputes raised by melaye was wrongly done at the wrong platform. any disputes arising from unit results must be settled at ward collation

You see that particular problem there,, it is really a very biiigg problem..

It was the INEC who thwarted the process of settling of disputes, (Section-64(6)-(c-&-d)..), starting from the ward-collation levels, and throughout the whole upper levels of collation.

Thus, I would be very correct if I say that the Provisions of the Electoral Act was violated, and the violations thwarted the smooth-verification of the whole process.

fergie001:
Apt.
100%
Gbam

Now, what do you think about courage in the judiciary to stand on the side of the law and not highest bidder or kowtow to intimidation?

Whynotthetruth:


Now, what do you think about courage in the judiciary to stand on the side of the law and not highest bidder or kowtow to intimidation?

Forget anything from this apex Court.

Just forget it.

MrColdsweat:

I lost brain cells reading that incoherent trash from that mister.

He is not a mister he is an AFONJA RACIST.

BluntCrazeMan:
You see that particular problem there,, it is really a very biiigg problem..
It thwarted the process of settling of disputes, (Section-64(6)-(c-&-d)..), starting from the ward-collation levels, and throughout the whole upper levels of collation.

Thus, I would be very correct if I say that the Provisions of the Electoral Act was violated, and it thwarted the smooth-verification of the whole process.

Nothing was violated and even if it was it wasn't substantial..
You are getting it but not enough.what melaye complained of was suppsrd to be dealt with at polling unit and ward levels.the inec chairman deals with state results not unit results.if that was done,they would have easily resolved it.what melaye should have complained of was that more results should be posted for party agents at ward level tp tabulate....dont forget that each agent has a copy of result

BluntCrazeMan:
For those who continue to argue that Transmission is not inside the Electoral Act...

I guess that these sections of the Electoral Act which I quoted here might have done justice to their argument..

You did a very good job however, the act did not mention "electronic" transmission of results as you argued; the destination of the transmitted result is not also stated.

The most intriguing part for me is that people expected INEC to transmit result of election for which the electoral act says is subject to "verification" and "confirmation" at the next level of collation. It doesn't make sense.

omo senators dey try o. see as i dey read this thing and my head dey turn

fergie001:
Forget anything from this apex Court.

Just forget it.

No hope for justice

Simeonjoe1:


No you need thousands of evidence.
In the constitution a few hundreds of proof is not enough to alter the original score. Hence you'll need proof in all LGA that shows you have the highest number and spread.
This is no easy work!!! It can take months or years

But remember this is 2023 and everyone has a phone, and in every polling unit there was a video recorded.

senatordave1:


Not true.they will only declare those particular results void

Really they will declare video evidences, with inec results and signatures void, do you think this is 2003 or do you think we are still using nokia torch.?

babajero:
Really they will declare video evidences, with inec results and signatures void, do you think this is 2003 or do you think we are still using nokia torch.?

You will have to tie all your evidences to a particular unit and show how it affected the results there

Parachoko:
I'm waiting to see if Obi and Atiku will choose to waste money going to the tribunal

obidient will be victorious

BluntCrazeMan:
Please explain better to me..
Let me understand what the Phrase “DIRECTLY FROM POLLING UNITS” in Section-64(4)-(a-&-b).. And also, in Section-64(5) Actually means...




...
Meanwhile,, both the Electoral Act (Section -64(6)..) and the INEC-Guidelines made it compulsory that the “DIRECTLY” Transmitted Results must be a part of the Electoral Process for the sole purpose of “Verification”, and that it should be made available after the elections to anyone who demands for the data and paid the stipulated fee.

Verification for the collation officers and verification by the public, but failure to upload does not.stop the.collation process

Godspikin:



Verification for the collation officers and verification by the public, but failure to upload does not.stop the.collation process

It doesn't stop the collation.
No Problems..
But it badly affected the transparency and the acceptability of the collation process, in the sense that disputes were not settled...

**(But then, disputes were very-well settled in the Senatorial and House of Representatives Elections, and that was because the results were transmitted directly from the Polling Units.. So, why was it that settling of disputes was so difficult in the Presidential Election.??).

babajero:
But remember this is 2023 and everyone has a phone, and in every polling unit there was a video recorded.

Yeah it makes the gathering of evidence easier

BluntCrazeMan:
WHAT EXACTLY DID THE ELECTORAL ACT SAY ABOUT THE ELECTION RESULTS.??

***(This piece might be very long, but then, if you really need more insight about the electronic transmission wahalla, and what the Electoral Act really says about it, then you have to try and read through to the end..)

I am going to be dropping the quotes, with little comments after them.



For those that would argue that the INEC Guidelines are not recognised by the Electoral Act.., the Section-148 had provided answers to that argument.

Even though the INEC Guidelines should not override the Electoral Act,, but then, wherever the Electoral Act give powers to the “Commission”, then the words that are contained inside the “INEC Guidelines” and “Manuals” would become the Authentic Law with respect to those sections where the Electoral Act gave powers to the Commission..

---

Refer back to Section-148..
The “INEC Guidelines” fully prescribed the manner for the “Transmission” of the results. Inside the INEC Guidelines, the INEC made it very clear that they developed a system known as the “Collation Support and Result Verification System” (CSRVS), in order facilitate the “TRANSMISSION” of Results and Accreditation Data.

It should be made very clear at this point; that the Online Results-Viewing Portal (IREV) is just the platform for the public to view the supposed Polling-Units Results that were uploaded to the online viewing portal,, AND NOT THE REQUIRED PLATFORM WHICH THE INEC DEDICATED FOR THE ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION AND COLLATION AND VERIFICATION OF RESULTS, AS POINTED OUT INSIDE THE ELECTORAL ACT.

The platform for the E-transmission and E-collation as required by the Electoral Act is the CSRVS, and not really the IREV.




The Commission, as referred to in this Act, is the INEC.

Refer back to Section-148..
The INEC fully prescribed the manner for the “Transfer” of the results (including the “transfer” of the total number of accredited voters) inside the INEC Guidelines.



Take note of the word “Deliver” in the Section-62(1); which is totally different from the word “Transfer” which was used in Section-60(5)..

***(This might be the ONLY part of the Electoral Act which the INEC-Chairman read, and believed that the Electoral Act provided for ONLY the Manual Delivery of the Results)..

Also note that the Electoral Act also didn't expressly dictate the exact methods of collation to be deployed.
But then, no matter the method of Collation used,, Section-64 should be checks-and-balances tool which must be applied.
And there is a strong penalty for violating Section-64.


NOW, LET US TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT SECTION-64..


A result -- According to Section-64(9) -- is regarded as “False Result” if it didn't follow the procedures specified in Section-64(6)-(a-to-d).. -- which is, Electronic Transmission and Collation, and Verification.




Going by Section-65(1):
It simply means that the returning officer can upturn the decisions of the Presiding Officer, or those of the collation officers if -- within the review period -- there were errors which the returning officer had corrected.











I PURPOSELY DID NOT DROP ANY QUOTES FROM THE “INEC GUIDELINES”..
SO THAT WE WON'T CONFUSE OURSELVES..

ALL THE QUOTES WHICH I HAVE DROPPED HERE ARE ALL QUOTED ENTIRELY FROM THE ELECTORAL ACT OF 2022.

Nigger， ask yourself if all these jargons makes sense to an average Nigerian who is pained by leadership failures.
The whites will always stay ahead，because they make laws and follow it through for collective progress and development， rather than for defending deficiencies and mediocrity.

INEC did something similar in 2019 presidential elections，rigging it in APC’s favor，alleging that no result was uploaded to the server they were allocated millions of Naira to set up for ensuring credibility， during the electoral process. Today its still the same.

You spoke to the masses in lay man’s terms and assured them of credibility at all cost，by utilizing special electronic device to guarantee that.
You failed to do that eventually， evading transparancy as expected and agreed， now your are defending your failure with the electoral act.
Thats how we run politics here in Nigeria- detrimental to the growth of our system.

I watched the offhand look Mamoud wore on his face， ignoring Dino and other’s call that electronic results be uploaded as stated by INEC earlier. If the people mattered to Mamoud，he would have been very concerned about raising people’s doubt.

The law was made for the people， not vice versa. If the people keep getting bitterness and uncertainties from the implementation the law， then that system is messed up.

They always come up with legal jargons， when they want to shut off the average man who’s always victim of their failures， to defend compromising positions, especially with monetary benefits involved.

The elctoral laws are absolutely useless if they can‘t be utilized to guarantee transparency and people’s trust in INEC as an impartial， independent entity.
Keyamo has all of these in his head but is still a SAN approved idiot.

Simplicity is always beautiful.