The noise on Supreme Court ruling in Wike Vs Peterside Dakuku on the real winner of the Rivers Guber in 2015 was quoted in many quarters as the likely verdict in Atiku VS Buhari's case but it seems this is not likely as many waters have passed under the bridge between 2015 and 2019. Atiku is standing on the Electoral Law backing of the Smart Card Reader which was non existence in 2015. However, I am not a lawyer but I need legal luminaries in the house to give an elaborate interpretations to this hotly debated topic.

Below is Supreme Court reasons for ignoring the Smart Card Reader for manual collation in 2015:

Supreme Court gives reasons for upholding Wike’s election as Rivers Governor!

DAILY POST reports that the crux of the judgment is that the trial tribunal and the lower appeal court were wrongly swayed by INEC guideline on the use of card readers for the election.

The court also said that the trial tribunal denied Wike fair hearing when it was hearing the petition.

It held that while it commends INEC for the introduction of card readers, the innovation, however, cannot supersede the voters register.

The court said that extant laws of the federation provides for the use of voters register but the card reader irrespective of its importance does not have a place in any extant law of the land.

Hence it said that the tribunal was wrong to base it judgment on non compliance with the use of card readers.

It advised INEC to approach the National Assembly for an amendment to incorporate the use of card readers in the law of the land.

On the issue of allegation of violence and hijacking, the court held that Dakuku was not able to prove beyond reasonable doubt because he failed to bring in witnesses from all the polling units to substantiate the claims.

The court also held that for peterside to prove non accreditation, he ought to have tendered the voters register and then demonstrate it.

The court said that the voters register could not be jettisoned for the card reader because it has a place in law while the card reader doesn’t.

The court also held that the tribunal and the lower court were unduly swayed by INEC’s directive on card reader usage during the election, adding that it cannot supersede the voters register.

However, the court while noting that INEC is empowered to make subsidiary regulations as regards election, said the regulations must not go contrary to constitutional provisions.

On the evidence of INEC staff known as PW40 who described the election as a sham and a mockery of democracy, the court held that his evidence cannot take the place of voters as he himself under cross exermination did not say that he personally witnessed any violence but depended on hearsay.

Finally the court held that to warrant nullification of an election, a petitioner has to prove that there was substantial non-compliance in all polling units, adding that they failed to bring the issue within this parametre.

The court commended INEC for its innovation of the smart card readers but was quick to add that validation of voting process through the use of voters register takes precedent over any other process for now.

https://dailypost.ng/2016/02/12/rivers-judgement-supreme-court-flaws-tribunal-appeal-courts/

Atiku is coming.

I need brilliant and unbiased analyses from our learned gentlemen in the house please on this. ChristianNorth, engineerboat, tuniski, wiseandtrue, etc oya come and contribute

dukie25:
Atiku is coming.

Did you read the post? The post buried atiku's chances

[s]

garfield1:

Did you read the post? The post buried atiku's chances

[/s]

Don't worry, Atiku is Coming whether you like it or not.

dukie25:
[s][/s]

Don't worry, Atiku is Coming whether you like it or not.

To see his twitter fans

LAW DIGEST

How Electoral Act 2015 legalised card reader

Published

March 24, 2016

Femi Falana

In December last year, the Supreme Court upheld all the disputed governorship elections conducted by the Independent National Electoral Commission on April 11, 2015 and undertook to adduce reasons for each of the judgments at a later date.  Last month, the court announced  the reasons for the decisions. Essentially, the apex court vehemently disagreed with the judgments of the Court of Appeal which had set aside election results which emanated from manual accreditation instead of the card reader machines prescribed by the INEC.  For not validating the use of card reader for voter accreditation some commentators, including lawyers, have criticised the verdicts of the apex court. The criticisms which have greeted the judgments are not unexpected given the controversy which trailed the use of card reader for the elections.

Although the National Assembly had approved fund for the purchase of the card reader machines in the Appropriation Act of 2014, the then ruling party wanted to use its control of the federal legislature to discredit the electronic device. Hence, the immediate-past chairman of the INEC, Prof. Attahiru Jega, was summoned to the Senate to justify the introduction of the card reader for voter accreditation. In taking up the challenge, Prof. Jega demonstrated the use of card readers and its capacity to eliminate electoral fraud perpetrated at the accreditation stage of election. At the end of the exercise the Senate was compelled to endorse the use of card reader for the 2015  general election. Thereafter, the Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2015 which sought to legitimise the use of card reader was unanimously passed by both chambers of  the National Assembly. The bill was signed into law by former President Goodluck Jonathan on March 20, 2015.

Prior to the amendment, Section 52 of the Electoral Act had prohibited the INEC from the use of any form of electronic voting. But following the amendment of the provision, the INEC has been conferred with the power to determine the procedure to use for any election. Specifically, Section 52 states that “voting at an election shall be in accordance with the procedure determined by the Independent National Electoral Commission.” With the amendment of the law the INEC was on terra firma when it decided to use the card reader machine for the accreditation of voters for the 2015 general election.

In spite of the initial hiccups encountered by voters with respect to the use of the card reader machines it is generally agreed that the technological device enhanced the credibility of the 2015 general election. Indeed, a number of the election petitions filed by aggrieved candidates were anchored on the gap between the number of voters accredited with the card reader machines and the fake election results declared by some returning officers. At the election petition tribunals, the INEC, through its lawyers, canvassed rather curiously that the directive on accreditation of voters with the aid of  card reader machines was not backed by any law. And that the failure to comply with the directive could not vitiate any election conducted by the INEC.

Some members of the Election Petition Tribunals and the Justices of the Court of Appeal upheld the submissions of the INEC lawyers. In their judgments they  ignored the figures of accredited voters obtained via the card reader machines.  Others were however convinced that the directive on the use of card reader was backed by the letter and spirit of the Electoral Act. In the case of APC v Kolawole Agbaje, Ogbuinya JCA traced the genesis of the card reader when he said, “The evolution of the concept of smart card readers is a familiar one. It came to being during the last general election held in March and April, 2015 in Nigeria. On this score, it is a nascent procedure injected into our infant and fledgling electoral system to ensure credible and transparent election. Specifically, it is aimed to concretise our fragile process of accreditation – the keystone of any suffrage. The concept, owing to its recent invention by INEC, a non-legislative body, traces its paternity to the manual for election officials, 2015.”

The above view of Ogbuinya J.C.A was adopted in toto by Ejembi Eko JCA in the case of Umana v Emmanuel, when he stated that, “I do not believe that with the fast pace of development globally and the whole world embracing the latest IT technologies, that resistance should be placed to emerging technologies geared towards transparency in elections, by backward thinking interpretations that can only be deleterious to the system. Holding otherwise would be to truncate the great efforts of the 3rd respondent (INEC) in its bid to ensure a credible election and in so doing attempt to plug all loopholes that can be exploited by unscrupulous persons.”

Regrettably, the Supreme Court did not share the progressive view of both Ogbuinya and Eko JJCA on the legal validity of the technological device. Thus, in the  case of Edward Okereke v Dave Umahi  the apex court held that the appellant failed woefully to prove the allegation of over-voting  as he did not tender the voters’ registers along with the card reader reports.  Justice Cletus Nweze, who read the lead judgment of the court, held that, “Indeed, since the Guidelines and Manual, which authorised the use and deployment of the electronic card reader machine, were made in exercise of the powers conferred by the Electoral Act, the said card reader cannot, logically, depose or dethrone the Voters’ Register whose judicial roots are firmly embedded or entrenched in the selfsame Electoral Act from which it (the Voters’ Register) directly, derives its sustenance and currency….since the National Assembly has not deleted the provision of Section 49 of the Electoral Act (2010), which allows manual accreditation, it would be wrong for any petitioner to seek to rely solely on the report of the card reader (which is intended as a supplementary measure to the already provided means of accreditation) to prove over-voting.”

However, in spite of the clear position of the INEC on the mandatory use of card readers for the governorship and state legislative elections it did not adduce any argument in favour of the use of electronic device  at the various election petition tribunals and the appellate courts. It is particularly intriguing that the INEC did not defend the card reader by relying on Section 52 of the Electoral Act (Amendment Act) 2015. If the attention of the Justices of the Supreme Court had been drawn to the 2015 amendment of the Electoral Act they could not have held that accreditation by the card reader machine was supplementary to manual accreditation. In other words, the judgments of the apex court would have legitimised the use of card reader for voter accreditation. No doubt, the legitimisation of the card reader would have had dire consequences on the results of the disputed governorship elections.

Falana, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, writes from Lagos

Copyright PUNCH.
All rights reserved. This material, and other digital content on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express written permission from PUNCH.


https://punchng.com/

BREAKING: INEC Says No Voting Without PVCs Accepted By Smart Card Readers

"The commission has operated under the policy that no citizen can vote without the PVC issued by the commission and read by the smart card reader," Mahmood Yakubu said.

BY SAHARAREPORTERS, NEW YORKFEB 21, 2019

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has confirmed that anyone whose Permanent Voter Card (PVC) is not recognised by the Smart Card Reader will not be allowed to vote.

Professor Mahmood Yakubu, the INEC Chairman, said this on Thursday in Abuja during a press briefing on the commission’s readiness to conduct the rescheduled presidential and National Assembly elections on Saturday, February 23, 2019.

He also answered questions on the logistics preparations for the elections.

He said: "The commission has operated under the policy that no citizen can vote without the PVC issued by the commission and read by the smart card reader.

“Having announced the total number of registered voters and their distribution by age, gender and occupation, citizens deserve the right to know how many PVCs have been collected across the country.

"The last date for the collection of PVCs was Monday 11th February 2019. Out of the 84,000,484 registered voters, the total number of PVCs collected stands at 72,775,585, which represents 86.3% of the total PVCs produced. Detailed breakdown and percentages of collection on state-by-state basis have been published on our website few minutes ago."

In the 2015 elections, electoral officers had to resort to the manual process as the card readers failed to read the PVCs.

In fact, former President Goodluck Jonathan and his wife, Patience Jonathan, spent more than almost an hour at their polling station in Otuoke, Bayelsa State, as at least four card readers failed to capture. He was eventually accredited to vote manually without a card reader.



http://saharareporters.com/2019/02/21/breaking-inec-says-no-voting-without-pvcs-accepted-smart-card-readers

The op post has indicted him and atiku as usual.this is exactly how the supreme court ruling would be.the post is very clear,you are just looking for fellow atiku fans to console or give you a biased view to massage your ego.
The supreme court is old fashioned and conservative.they advised inec to make moves for an amendment which failed so nothing has changed.only new laws can change them.let me summarize the whole judgment for those who dont understand.

In,goodluck signed an electoral law just before the polls which supposedly regulated that polls so i dont know which other law you are talking about.
The supreme court said card readers arebgood innovations that can help make our elections more free and fair but cannot supercede the manual register without legal backing.therefore,electronic transmission or any other electronic system or server results cannot override or supercede the manual result sheets.
The card readers can still be used plus electronic transmission but it cannot be a ground for non compliance for now.non use of manual register or voting system is surely a ground for non compliance.

All allegations of non compliance must be PROVEN IN ALL POLLING UNITS.tuniski and christian north,take note here.for the sake of atiku,we can amend it to majority of polling units or half.even senseless adeleke had the sense to base his claims on polling units.mind you wards and lgas are not mentioned.the courts are interested in what happened at the polling units where elections took place and where results where declared and written not outside.at least,atiku should have targeted polling units covrring that 3.9 million gap.

Finally,the most important testimonies are from voters and party agents in this units in contention.it must be physically witnessed not based on hearsays or speculations.
For atiku to prove discrepancies in accreditation,he must use manual register not card readers or electronic records.i think thats that.i expect some people to still misunderstand the post and criticize base on sentiments.

Finally the court held that to warrant nullification of an election, a petitioner has to prove that there was substantial non-compliance in all polling units, adding that they failed to bring the issue within this parametre.

With the above self centered declaration, after collecting Billions of Naira from Gov Wike, Anybody approaching Supreme Court for any electoral dispute, is just wasting his resources and time.

Ratello:
I need brilliant and unbiased analyses from our learned gentlemen in the house please on this. ChristianNorth, engineerboat, tuniski, wiseandtrue, etc oya come and contribute

Card reader is legal in Nigeria. The Electoral Act empowers the INEC to set guidelines for the elections. These guidelines has the full force of the law.

In 2015, Ikpeazu SAN only exploited a loophole in our law to get that judgment from the Supreme court. Olujinmi SAN and Yusuf Alli SAN who were respresenting Dakuku and APC couldn't counter Ikpeazu SAN and Wole SAN arguments.

The Supreme Court has the power to over-rule themselves. Atiku's team only needs to rely on the strength of the Electoral Act to push for an over-ride.

Denying PDP that prayer is denying INEC of its power to set guidelines for the election which is unconstitutional and ultra vire.

So it is simple.

Does INEC have the power to issue election guidelines?

YES!

Did INEC validly issued a guideline that permits the use of card readers?

YES!

Is there any subsisting court judgment against those guidelines?

NO.

It is a simple case.

Anyway, if the Supreme Court denies INEC of its power to issue electoral guidelines and then rules the use of the card reader as illegal, then the electoral that produced Buhari is invalid.

Another sweet win for Atiku.

#Atikuiscoming

Ratello:
I need brilliant and unbiased analyses from our learned gentlemen in the house please on this. ChristianNorth, engineerboat, tuniski, wiseandtrue, etc oya come and contribute

Good morning in making contribution I will quote INEC chairman statements

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has confirmed that anyone whose Permanent Voter Card (PVC) is not recognised by the Smart Card Reader will not be allowed to vote.

Professor Mahmood Yakubu, the INEC Chairman, said this on Thursday in Abuja during a press briefing on the commission’s readiness to conduct the rescheduled presidential and National Assembly elections on Saturday, February 23, 2019.

He also answered questions on the logistics preparations for the elections.

He said: "The commission has operated under the policy that no citizen can vote without the PVC issued by the commission and read by the smart card reader.

“Having announced the total number of registered voters and their distribution by age, gender and occupation, citizens deserve the right to know how many PVCs have been collected across the country.

"The last date for the collection of PVCs was Monday 11th February 2019. Out of the 84,000,484 registered voters, the total number of PVCs collected stands at 72,775,585, which represents 86.3% of the total PVCs produced. Detailed breakdown and percentages of collection on state-by-state basis have been published on our website few minutes ago."

In the 2015 elections, electoral officers had to resort to the manual process as the card readers failed to read the PVCs.

In fact, former President Goodluck Jonathan and his wife, Patience Jonathan, spent more than almost an hour at their polling station in Otuoke, Bayelsa State, as at least four card readers failed to capture. He was eventually accredited to vote manually without a card reader.

ChristianNorth:

Card reader is legal in Nigeria. The Electoral Act empowers the INEC to set guidelines for the elections. These guidelines has the full force of the law.

In 2015, Ikpeazu SAN only exploited a loophole in our law to get that judgment from the Supreme court. Olujinmi SAN and Yusuf Alli SAN who were respresenting Dakuku and APC couldn't counter Ikpeazu SAN and Wole SAN arguments.

The Supreme Court has the power to over-rule themselves. Atiku's team only needs to rely on the strength of the Electoral Act to push for an over-ride.

Denying PDP that prayer is denying INEC of its power to set guidelines for the election which is unconstitutional and ultra vire.

So it is simple.

Does INEC have the power to issue election guidelines?

YES!

Did INEC validly issued a guideline that permits the use of card readers?

YES!

Is there any subsisting court judgment against those guidelines?

NO.

It is a simple case.

Anyway, if the Supreme Court denies INEC of its power to issue electoral guidelines and then rules the use of the card reader as illegal, then the electoral that produced Buhari is invalid.

Another sweet win for Atiku.

#Atikuiscoming

So what happens when INEC guideline is in conflict with electoral laws and the Constitution?

No wonder you are only good in bigotry.

I sincerelly appreciate how ATIKU is giving the following a run of their live.


1. INEC
2. APC
3. BUHARI

a hard but to crack from all possible front

The kernel of the atiku petition isn't the e-collation results, it's the number of accredited voters vis a vis the number of votes.

Inec regulation clearly states that any PU where the votes outstrip accredited voters will be voided

engineerboat:


Good morning in making contribution I will quote INEC chairman statements

So INEC Chairman press releases supercede the Constitution and the electoral laws?

Daftness!

I personally listen to the INEC chairman string clearly that only voted recognized by Card reader will be Counted as real result.


This is where INEC will also need to explain.

How where they able to ascertain the actually accredited voters by Card Reader.

Isn't it from their Card Reader Data base.

Hmmmm.

NgeneUkwenu:


So INEC Chairman press releases supercede the Constitution and the electoral laws?

Daftness!

Men and women are talking who is this

It is better to allow Atikulooters to debate nonsense among themselves till the election petition tribunal throw the useless heap of rubbish Atiku called 'petition' into the dustbin of history.
Arguing with them is just a mere academic exercise, their brain is full of mud!

engineerboat:
I sincerelly appreciate how ATIKU is giving the following a run of their live.


1. INEC
2. APC
3. BUHARI

a hard but to crack from all possible front

He is only giving brainless ipob pigs, reasons to console themselves pending when the Tribunal will throw the case into the dustbin.

His lawyers have to be the most useless Election dispute lawyers I have come across.

garfield1:
The op post has indicted him and atiku as usual.this is exactly how the supreme court ruling would be.the post is very clear,you are just looking for fellow atiku fans to console or give you a biased view to massage your ego.
The supreme court is old fashioned and conservative.they advised inec to make moves for an amendment which failed so nothing has changed.only new laws can change them.let me summarize the whole judgment for those who dont understand.

In,goodluck signed an electoral law just before the polls which supposedly regulated that polls so i dont know which other law you are talking about.
The supreme court said card readers arebgood innovations that can help make our elections more free and fair but cannot supercede the manual register without legal backing.therefore,electronic transmission or any other electronic system or server results cannot override or supercede the manual result sheets.
The card readers can still be used plus electronic transmission but it cannot be a ground for non compliance for now.non use of manual register or voting system is surely a ground for non compliance.

All allegations of non compliance must be PROVEN IN ALL POLLING UNITS.tuniski and christian north,take note here.for the sake of atiku,we can amend it to majority of polling units or half.even senseless adeleke had the sense to base his claims on polling units.mind you wards and lgas are not mentioned.the courts are interested in what happened at the polling units where elections took place and where results where declared and written not outside.at least,atiku should have targeted polling units covrring that 3.9 million gap.

Finally,the most important testimonies are from voters and party agents in this units in contention.it must be physically witnessed not based on hearsays or speculations.
For atiku to prove discrepancies in accreditation,he must use manual register not card readers or electronic records.i think thats that.i expect some people to still misunderstand the post and criticize base on sentiments.

Lol.

When we were studying law at the university we were taught one thing. Nigeria law is not what the NASS passed and assented by Buhari, but what the court interprets it to be.

All you need is to convince the court. Wike got that ruling not because card reader is invalid under our law because it is not, rather his team supported by INEC exploited a loophole in the law to convince the Supreme court which Dakuku and APC couldn't counter.

All PDP needs is to convince the Supreme court that judgment was given in err and the Supreme Court will over-rule themself.

Shikena

Ratello:
LAW DIGEST

How Electoral Act 2015 legalised card reader

Published

March 24, 2016

Femi Falana

In December last year, the Supreme Court upheld all the disputed governorship elections conducted by the Independent National Electoral Commission on April 11, 2015 and undertook to adduce reasons for each of the judgments at a later date.  Last month, the court announced  the reasons for the decisions. Essentially, the apex court vehemently disagreed with the judgments of the Court of Appeal which had set aside election results which emanated from manual accreditation instead of the card reader machines prescribed by the INEC.  For not validating the use of card reader for voter accreditation some commentators, including lawyers, have criticised the verdicts of the apex court. The criticisms which have greeted the judgments are not unexpected given the controversy which trailed the use of card reader for the elections.

Although the National Assembly had approved fund for the purchase of the card reader machines in the Appropriation Act of 2014, the then ruling party wanted to use its control of the federal legislature to discredit the electronic device. Hence, the immediate-past chairman of the INEC, Prof. Attahiru Jega, was summoned to the Senate to justify the introduction of the card reader for voter accreditation. In taking up the challenge, Prof. Jega demonstrated the use of card readers and its capacity to eliminate electoral fraud perpetrated at the accreditation stage of election. At the end of the exercise the Senate was compelled to endorse the use of card reader for the 2015  general election. Thereafter, the Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2015 which sought to legitimise the use of card reader was unanimously passed by both chambers of  the National Assembly. The bill was signed into law by former President Goodluck Jonathan on March 20, 2015.

Prior to the amendment, Section 52 of the Electoral Act had prohibited the INEC from the use of any form of electronic voting. But following the amendment of the provision, the INEC has been conferred with the power to determine the procedure to use for any election. Specifically, Section 52 states that “voting at an election shall be in accordance with the procedure determined by the Independent National Electoral Commission.” With the amendment of the law the INEC was on terra firma when it decided to use the card reader machine for the accreditation of voters for the 2015 general election.

In spite of the initial hiccups encountered by voters with respect to the use of the card reader machines it is generally agreed that the technological device enhanced the credibility of the 2015 general election. Indeed, a number of the election petitions filed by aggrieved candidates were anchored on the gap between the number of voters accredited with the card reader machines and the fake election results declared by some returning officers. At the election petition tribunals, the INEC, through its lawyers, canvassed rather curiously that the directive on accreditation of voters with the aid of  card reader machines was not backed by any law. And that the failure to comply with the directive could not vitiate any election conducted by the INEC.

Some members of the Election Petition Tribunals and the Justices of the Court of Appeal upheld the submissions of the INEC lawyers. In their judgments they  ignored the figures of accredited voters obtained via the card reader machines.  Others were however convinced that the directive on the use of card reader was backed by the letter and spirit of the Electoral Act. In the case of APC v Kolawole Agbaje, Ogbuinya JCA traced the genesis of the card reader when he said, “The evolution of the concept of smart card readers is a familiar one. It came to being during the last general election held in March and April, 2015 in Nigeria. On this score, it is a nascent procedure injected into our infant and fledgling electoral system to ensure credible and transparent election. Specifically, it is aimed to concretise our fragile process of accreditation – the keystone of any suffrage. The concept, owing to its recent invention by INEC, a non-legislative body, traces its paternity to the manual for election officials, 2015.”

The above view of Ogbuinya J.C.A was adopted in toto by Ejembi Eko JCA in the case of Umana v Emmanuel, when he stated that, “I do not believe that with the fast pace of development globally and the whole world embracing the latest IT technologies, that resistance should be placed to emerging technologies geared towards transparency in elections, by backward thinking interpretations that can only be deleterious to the system. Holding otherwise would be to truncate the great efforts of the 3rd respondent (INEC) in its bid to ensure a credible election and in so doing attempt to plug all loopholes that can be exploited by unscrupulous persons.”

Regrettably, the Supreme Court did not share the progressive view of both Ogbuinya and Eko JJCA on the legal validity of the technological device. Thus, in the  case of Edward Okereke v Dave Umahi  the apex court held that the appellant failed woefully to prove the allegation of over-voting  as he did not tender the voters’ registers along with the card reader reports.  Justice Cletus Nweze, who read the lead judgment of the court, held that, “Indeed, since the Guidelines and Manual, which authorised the use and deployment of the electronic card reader machine, were made in exercise of the powers conferred by the Electoral Act, the said card reader cannot, logically, depose or dethrone the Voters’ Register whose judicial roots are firmly embedded or entrenched in the selfsame Electoral Act from which it (the Voters’ Register) directly, derives its sustenance and currency….since the National Assembly has not deleted the provision of Section 49 of the Electoral Act (2010), which allows manual accreditation, it would be wrong for any petitioner to seek to rely solely on the report of the card reader (which is intended as a supplementary measure to the already provided means of accreditation) to prove over-voting.”

However, in spite of the clear position of the INEC on the mandatory use of card readers for the governorship and state legislative elections it did not adduce any argument in favour of the use of electronic device  at the various election petition tribunals and the appellate courts. It is particularly intriguing that the INEC did not defend the card reader by relying on Section 52 of the Electoral Act (Amendment Act) 2015. If the attention of the Justices of the Supreme Court had been drawn to the 2015 amendment of the Electoral Act they could not have held that accreditation by the card reader machine was supplementary to manual accreditation. In other words, the judgments of the apex court would have legitimised the use of card reader for voter accreditation. No doubt, the legitimisation of the card reader would have had dire consequences on the results of the disputed governorship elections.

Falana, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, writes from Lagos

Copyright PUNCH.
All rights reserved. This material, and other digital content on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express written permission from PUNCH.


https://punchng.com/

Inec will still not defend it vigorously.that clause is not sufficient to be a ground for substantial non compliance.finally,even if card readers are admitted,its data will be limited to the less than 1000 units atiku pleaded

Section 52 of the Electoral Act says that

“voting at an election shall be in accordance with the procedure determined by the Independent National Electoral Commission.”

Even If INEC says it is using palm kernels for fingerprints.

ChristianNorth:

Card reader is legal in Nigeria. The Electoral Act empowers the INEC to set guidelines for the elections. These guidelines has the full force of the law.

In 2015, Ikpeazu SAN only exploited a loophole in our law to get that judgment from the Supreme court. Olujinmi SAN and Yusuf Alli SAN who were respresenting Dakuku and APC couldn't counter Ikpeazu SAN and Wole SAN arguments.

The Supreme Court has the power to over-rule themselves. Atiku's team only needs to rely on the strength of the Electoral Act to push for an over-ride.

Denying PDP that prayer is denying INEC of its power to set guidelines for the election which is unconstitutional and ultra vire.

So it is simple.

Does INEC have the power to issue election guidelines?

YES!

Did INEC validly issued a guideline that permits the use of card readers?

YES!

Is there any subsisting court judgment against those guidelines?

NO.

It is a simple case.

Anyway, if the Supreme Court denies INEC of its power to issue electoral guidelines and then rules the use of the card reader as illegal, then the electoral that produced Buhari is invalid.

Another sweet win for Atiku.

#Atikuiscoming

So its no more about server results?

Backed by Section 52 of the Electoral Act, INEC decides the guidelines to use in conducting elections and in 2019, e-collation was used and no law prohibits the use of e-collation.

garfield1:

So its no more about server results?

You're a small boy.

Just watch by the sideline.

The elders in this matter are talking.

APC, INEC and BUHARI are been stretched and pinned to a corner without them knowing.


You will not see that coming anyway because your pay master will not let you think on that

NgeneUkwenu:


So what happens when INEC guideline is in conflict with electoral laws and the Constitution?

No wonder you are only good in bigotry.

I don't have time for insults.

If an election is conducted based on an invalid guideline, the entire process would be declared invalid.

Another win for Atiku.

ChristianNorth:

Card reader is legal in Nigeria. The Electoral Act empowers the INEC to set guidelines for the elections. These guidelines has the full force of the law.

In 2015, Ikpeazu SAN only exploited a loophole in our law to get that judgment from the Supreme court. Olujinmi SAN and Yusuf Alli SAN who were respresenting Dakuku and APC couldn't counter Ikpeazu SAN and Wole SAN arguments.

The Supreme Court has the power to over-rule themselves. Atiku's team only needs to rely on the strength of the Electoral Act to push for an over-ride.

Denying PDP that prayer is denying INEC of its power to set guidelines for the election which is unconstitutional and ultra vire.

So it is simple.

Does INEC have the power to issue election guidelines?

YES!

Did INEC validly issued a guideline that permits the use of card readers?

YES!

Is there any subsisting court judgment against those guidelines?

NO.

It is a simple case.

Anyway, if the Supreme Court denies INEC of its power to issue electoral guidelines and then rules the use of the card reader as illegal, then the electoral that produced Buhari is invalid.

Another sweet win for Atiku.

#Atikuiscoming

CARD Reader is not illegal but only limited for the accreditation of voters to avoid over voting. Transmission of results by any means other than the manual method is strange to our Constitution.

engineerboat:
Backed by Section 52 of the Electoral Act, INEC decides the guidelines to use in conducting elections and in 2019, e-collation was used and no law prohibits the use of e-collation.

What an inconsistent fellow.i thought you said accreditation were the kernel of the useless suit? We are talking about server results and manual results not collation.manual results overrides every every.why are you afraid of manual? What a fake engineer

engineerboat:


You're a small boy.

Just watch by the sideline.

The elders in this matter are talking.

APC, INEC and BUHARI are been stretched and pinned to a corner without them knowing.


You will not see that coming anyway because your pay master will not let you think on that

Continue spitting nairaland engineer