otokx:
Wole Olanipekun again, PDP maybe in trouble.

No PDP
But Nigeria in particular " you "

Please guys, watch Channels TV right now, it is interviewing with the INEC National Officer, Festus Okoye

Kenturkey048:
senior all RATECH guys were given a Samsung TAB,subbed with a GLO sim..basically for results transmission electronically ...meaning we connected our SCR through the WIFI of the Samsung TAB..

make we leave atiku and buhari out of this..is INEC actually playing with the intelligence of Nigerians at large.

I agree with what you stated above but please read what INEC officer said here, quoted in my last post on page 5.

https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2019/06/20/how-presidential-veto-frustrated-electronic-transfer-of-2019-polls-results/

However, Buhari vetoed the bill, saying some of its provisions would cause confusion for INEC since the elections were too close for their implementation.

The source said while it was ready to transmit the results electronically, there were fears that the court could nullify them, if asked to, for violating the subsisting Electoral Act (2010), as amended.

However, he said he did not want to say much on the matter since it was part of the issues to be determined by the Presidential Election Tribunal.

The source said: “Yes, we have a server or website. We have a website for the registration of voters. We have a server for political parties’ registration where all data are stored. We also operated a pilot transmission of results in the Ondo and Osun State governorship elections.

“But all our efforts came to nothing with the president not signing the Electoral Act (Amendment Bill) in the twilight of our preparations for the elections. So, we consulted on what to do and we were advised to stick to the subsisting laws on the elections. This is because to insist on going ahead with the electronic transmission of election results could put the elections in great danger.

“Someone could go to court and say that we operated outside of the constitutionally-recognised rules of the elections. Someone could go to court and the elections would be declared null and void.”

INEC planned to use the Server,
INEC prepared and trained staff (PO's) to use the Server and RATECh to assit them if they have a "technical problem".

But at the last minute, the Electoral Amendment bill they hope would LEGALISE the use of the Server, WAS NOT SIGNED into Law!
From that moment, to use the Server will invalidate the whole election .............so its use was cancelled at the last minute.
Most people cant follow that train of thought

muykem:
Atiku lawyers are not doing well how will bring somebody that his role is not known to law as a prime witness.

More witnesses will come. It's turn by turn. And in the mouth of two or three witnesses, every case shall be established.

There are several people employed by INEC to assist the agency in carrying out it's duty on election day but the cadres of staff recognized by electoral act to specifically perform the actual functions of elections are the Assistsnt presiding officers and the presiding officers at the polling units.

There are technicians that were employed to quickly replace/repair malfunctioning card readers and they were drivers employed to transport ballot boxes with thumbprinted ballot papers,indellible ink and pads but there roles are captured in the electoral act.

decub:

I think we also need to know what the electoral act says and whose information (combined) the Presiding officers depend on. If RATECH is not recognized by law, then who engaged them, and for what purpose? The whole thing is getting interesting cos it might dig up INEC loop holes.

Daboomb:


Thank you Sir, you have answered the question, as bolded above.

let me just add that it is[b] impossible, for INEC to ask anyone to transmit the result electronically [/b](after they realised, a day to election, that Mr. President has refused assent to the new elelctoral Bill which would have authorised such electronic transmission.

To do so is to invalidate the whole election because it would be breaking the existing law, which prohibits the transmission of result electronically.

Please read it here: https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2019/06/20/how-presidential-veto-frustrated-electronic-transfer-of-2019-polls-results/

The impossible aspect is what was said. APOs and RATECHs are testifying now that they transmitted election results to a server based on INEC's instructions. So as you choose to believe INEC, others choose to believe the electoral officers and RATECHs. It's what the courts have to determine now if INEC indeed asked its staff to transmit elections electronically which will validate the existence of a server. So you see why I said let's what for more days to know where the tribunal will lean towards: either towards INEC or towards the staff.

Mind you the pilot transmission is a tacit admission of the existence of electronic transmission in Osun and Kogi elections. So you see how the case could throw up a lot of issues for INEC

Good.
This is the first time that I am seeing a Presiding Officer saying he transmitted the results electronically.

My questions for you;

1) Were the parties' agents and the security awared of and verified the results that you transmitted?

2) Did you transmit the results of only APC and PDP or included the results of ALL the parties?

olutop:

Because RACtech were the ones who thought us (Apo1 and PO), The use of that SCR, And they were the ones who help us out whenever we have issues with the SCR, In a sane Society the INEC will come out plain about the conduct of the election, the server issue and the stakeholders will resign, leaving the parties to be fighting each other... Because I personally transmitted the result of my PU Through the SCR to INEC server as instructed by the E O through the SPO...

Daboomb:


I agree with what you stated above but please read what INEC officer said here, quoted in my last post on page 5.

https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2019/06/20/how-presidential-veto-frustrated-electronic-transfer-of-2019-polls-results/



INEC planned to use the Server,
INEC prepared and trained staff (PO's) to use the Server and RATECh to assit them if they have a "technical problem".

But at the last minute, the Electoral Amendment bill they hope would LEGALISE the use of the Server, WAS NOT SIGNED into Law!
From that moment, to use the Server will invalidate the whole election .............so its use was cancelled at the last minute.
Most people cant follow that train of thought

What you are pushing is INEC's argument. Their staff are saying otherwise. Its their words against INEC's

Daboomb:


Sir,
Can l ask you, as a P.O: Which Law/Act are you aware, that was the guiding law, to the election you presided over.
If you are not aware of which one, that is okay as l am also aware that it is not your duty to bother with that part of the election, l just want to have your own opinion on the law.

Respectfully sir,are you doubting the veracity of my submission with respect to Ratech not being in charged of the subject matter?
Admittedly, this scenario might not be uniform across the country but the electoral Act of 2010 (As amended) is clear about individual position and responsibilities.
Let me cite a reference sir,one of my APOs (specifically APO 1) who is in charge of verification left during the election process and I was forced to take up his responsibility since we're after the successful conduct of the election.
Don't know if have answered your question,sir.

oyatz:
Good.
This is the first time that I am seeing a Presiding Officer saying he transmitted the results electronically.

My questions for you;

1) Were the parties' agents and the security awared of and verified the results that you transmitted?

2) Did you transmit the results of only APC and PDP or included the results of ALL the parties?

Of course they verified the results,and the result of all the parties present on the ballot papers were transmitted, That is why I said we corpses that participated in the last election should speak out about the E-Collation before the roast the PO that testified in court today.
if anybody is to be blame for this irregularities it is INEC.

Accreditation and verification of voters' bio-data were done using what you just stated but not transmission of results which must be backed by law to make it legal.

Kenturkey048:
senior weall RATECH guys were given a Samsung TAB,subbed with a GLO sim..basically for results transmission electronically ...meaning we connected our SCR through the WIFI of the Samsung TAB..

make we leave atiku and buhari out of this..is INEC actually playing with the intelligence of Nigerians at large.

what did inec employ him to do? To transmit result or to repair faulty card reader.

In the manual collation, each party agent signed and received copies of the results in accordance to the electoral act.

In your electoronic collection, unknown to the electoral act, did each party agent append their signatures to the results sent electronically and have copies of these electronic results (in cases of disputes like this this?)

olutop:

Of course they verified the results,and the result of all the parties present on the ballot papers were transmitted, That is why I said we corpses that participated in the last election should speak out about the E-Collation before the roast the PO that testified in court today.
if anybody is to be blame for this irregularities it is INEC.

Daboomb:


Do you know which law guided the conduct of the 2019 presidential election? If YES, state it here.

After that, Do oyu know that that law PROHIBITS the Electronic transmission of result? If you dont know, l have no business engaging you because it shows that your ignorance is incurable.

But you can also show me WHY you say it is not prohibitted, maybe l can also learn something from you.

The law doesn't prohibit e-collation or e-transmission rather it prohibit electronic voting.

The current electoral act allows inec to adopt the process of collation it deem fit.

What the amended electoral act that PMB failed to sign attempt to do is to make compulsory electronic voting and equally e-transmission compulsory.

The effort of the pdp/Atiku's petition to prove conclusively that INEC did e-transmission is cos it is within inec's purview to do so but, not compulsory. That is why inec on the other hand is struggling to deny using it.

Whether if proven to have been used will now be a compelling evidence is up to the courts to decide.

The legal teams know this that is why they are trying to out do one another.

To seekers of clarity the Atiku's challenge will help settles that while deepening our electoral jurisprudence.

So please stop the display of half knowledge on the intricacy of e-transmmission/collation. INEC won't go out of its way to be budgeting money for illegality while getting approval for same by the senate.

oyatz:
Accreditation and verification of voters' bio-data were done using what you just stated but not transmission of results which must be backed by law to make it legal.

brother we transmitted result ooo.

Kenturkey048:
brother we transmitted result ooo.

Results were transmitted actually but inec said it was not to a server and has refused to mention where.apc lawyers are not trying to deny whether there's a server or not,there are now trying to use the law to kill it.one,that if ratech transmitted results,it is an illegality and a waste since it is clearly the duty of only the p.o to do so.secondly that if the p.o s transmitted results electrical,it is illegal or not compulsory.at the end of the day even if the court grants access to any server,it is mere formality.the primary results are in form ec8as and transmission is manual.

decub:

It wouldn't also be wrong for us to understand the role of the RATECH employee so we can truly determine if he actually went beyond his scope of assigned duties; not just to swallow what INEC told us.

I appreciate your comment, but would appreciate it more if we can analyze without looking at the ethnic affiliation of the accused or defendant.

You holds the Guy in some form of esteem.
He is an ethnic bigot, nothing more.

I just dey look am.

Kenturkey048:
senior all RATECH guys were given a Samsung TAB,subbed with a GLO sim..basically for results transmission electronically ...meaning we connected our SCR through the WIFI of the Samsung TAB..

make we leave atiku and buhari out of this..is INEC actually playing with the intelligence of Nigerians at large.

Your bosses just denied you.

Any unfortunate ratech guy can go to jail for doing his job in the last elections

muykem:
Olanipekun is too sound. He has killed the evidence of this witness without struggle. INEC guidelines didn't recognize registration area technicians simple.

The main focus ; Were their INEC server ?

RTSC:

You holds the Guy in some form of esteem.
He is an ethnic bigot, nothing more.

I just dey look am.

You better keep "looking am"...
I dont expect a riffraff like you to hold me in high esteem, if that is your source of "Sifia Pains".

teadrake:

Respectfully sir,are you doubting the veracity of my submission with respect to Ratech not being in charged of the subject matter?
Admittedly, this scenario might not be uniform across the country but the electoral Act of 2010 (As amended) is clear about individual position and responsibilities.
Let me cite a reference sir,one of my APOs (specifically APO 1) who is in charge of verification left during the election process and I was forced to take up his responsibility since we're after the successful conduct of the election.
Don't know if have answered your question,sir.

Somehow, you did Sir. You provided the law l had in mind.

The only other thing you can do for both of us, is to go through the section that deals with TRANSMISSION of Election results, from that Law.
I am certain you will, like thousands of other people, see tha it specifically PROHIBITS the ELECTRONIC (Client-to-Server) transmission of results.
(it does not prohibit "electronic accreditaion" using a Card Reader, mind you.)

If the above is true, from alegal point of view, (which is what a Law (Supreme) Court is all about), would you agree with me that if the 2010 Electoral Act (which is the only election law in force, when that election was conducted) prohibits something, and the Unpire said it also obeyed that law by not doing that which is prohibited and INSTRUCTING it's staff not to do same, no amount of deviation from such instruction by any staff or any cadre, can give "life or legality" to any action arising from such deviation or breaking of the law.

The worst that can/may happen is that those who intentionally own-up to breaking that law (like that particular RATECH giving evidence under oath), could/would be made to face the music, as scape goats, ....if just to reaffirm that what they did was prohibitted by an existing law, not to mention that it wasn't their assigned duty!
I hope it does not get to that sha.

Thank you and many others here, for the engaging discussion.

Daboomb:


Somehow, you did Sir. You provided the law l had in mind.

The only other thing you can do for both of us, is to go through the section that deals with TRANSMISSION of Election results, from that Law.
I am certain you will, like thousands of other people, see tha it specifically PROHIBITS the ELECTRONIC (Client-to-Server) transmission of results.
(it does not prohibit "electronic accreditaion" using a Card Reader, mind you.)

If the above is true, from alegal point of view, (which is what a Law (Supreme) Court is all about), would you agree with me that if the 2010 Electoral Act (which is the only election law in force, when that election was conducted) prohibits something, and the Unpire said it also obeyed that law by not doing that which is prohibited and INSTRUCTING it's staff not to do same, no amount of deviation from such instruction by any staff or any cadre, can give "life or legality" to any action arising from such deviation or breaking of the law.

The worst that can/may happen is that those who intentionally own-up to breaking that law (like that particular RATECH giving evidence under oath), could/would be made to face the music, as scape goats, ....if just to reaffirm that what they did was prohibitted by an existing law, not to mention that it wasn't their assigned duty!
I hope it does not get to that sha.

Thank you and many others here, for the engaging discussion.

On the 12th of January, 2019 Inec released regulations and guidelines with respect to the election and I would like you to pay careful attention here. "In compliance with 1999 constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria as amended and the Electoral Act of 2010 (As amended),these regulations and guidelines shall be used in the conduct of 2019 elections".
This regulations and guidelines comprises of 52 section carved out of the 2010 electoral act (as amended) and a particular Section (Section 22) of that guidelines emphatically stated thus with clauses " Transmission of results " affirmed that "The Presiding Officer is REQUIRED to TRANSMIT the results of the election obtained at the PU...(Let me stop here being the relevant part needed for this clarification and not necessarily argument sir).
Transmission of results via any channel whatsoever is solely the duty of the P.O as stated in the electoral act 2010 (as amended). Does that answer the question?

Transmission of result not by any means but by the. Lawful means = Manual transmission.

teadrake:

On the 12th of January, 2019 Inec released regulations and guidelines with respect to the election and I would like you to pay careful attention here. "In compliance with 1999 constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria as amended and the Electoral Act of 2010 (As amended),these regulations and guidelines shall be used in the conduct of 2019 elections".
This regulations and guidelines comprises of 52 section carved out of the 2010 electoral act (as amended) and a particular Section (Section 22) of that guidelines emphatically stated thus with clauses " Transmission of results " affirmed that "The Presiding Officer is REQUIRED to TRANSMIT the results of the election obtained at the PU...(Let me stop here being the relevant part needed for this clarification and not necessarily argument sir).
Transmission of results via any channel whatsoever is solely the duty of the P.O as stated in the electoral act 2010 (as amended). Does that answer the question?

somehow:
Transmission of result not by any means but by the. Lawful means = Manual transmission.

Sir,I just quoted a section of the said Act that empower and saddled us as P.Os the responsibility of transmitting results. Let the constitutional lawyer decide the lawful and unlawful part of that.
Why did you think the RaTech gave the POs the code for e-collation if the law doesn't empowered us for that

Like you said, the court will decide.

teadrake:

Sir,I just quoted a section of the said Act that empower and saddled us as P.Os the responsibility of transmitting results. Let the constitutional lawyer decide the lawful and unlawful part of that.
Why did you think the RaTech gave the POs the code for e-collation if the law doesn't empowered us for that

RTSC:

You holds the Guy in some form of esteem.
He is an ethnic bigot, nothing more.

I just dey look am.

I've learnt to tolerate people's shortcomings bro.

If I can express my view without being rude or confrontational, then I think any other person should.

It's actually a VERY small and easy world, we only make it look big and difficult.

garfield1:

Results were transmitted actually but inec said it was not to a server and has refused to mention where.apc lawyers are not trying to deny whether there's a server or not,there are now trying to use the law to kill it.one,that if ratech transmitted results,it is an illegality and a waste since it is clearly the duty of only the p.o to do so.secondly that if the p.o s transmitted results electrical,it is illegal or not compulsory.at the end of the day even if the court grants access to any server,it is mere formality.the primary results are in form ec8as and transmission is manual.

my brother there was not any result transmission oooh

Any PO that does that is on his own or not properly informed/trained

All the results were manually recorded in forms EC8Aseries

Even if you did, it would have been in breach of the electoral act which an electoral offence.

Kenturkey048:
brother we transmitted result ooo.

[s]

teadrake:

Sir,I just quoted a section of the said Act that empower and saddled us as P.Os the responsibility of transmitting results. Let the constitutional lawyer decide the lawful and unlawful part of that.
Why did you think the RaTech gave the POs the code for e-collation if the law doesn't empowered us for that[/s]

For the first time ever in our electoral process, election observers were allowed into INEC's situation room during this election. If you don't know what a situation room is, it is the engine room of INEC's operations, where INEC monitors field operations and gets feedback from personnel on the ground about their work and challenges as it concerned the elections. After the elections, ALL election observers, including the pro-PDP ones, said they had no knowledge of a server! If there was a server, don't you think they would have known in the course of their observations in the situation room? Only Atiku is talking of server. Only Atiku!!

The law doesn't prohibit e-collation or e-transmission rather it prohibit electronic voting.








*COPIED*

Daboomb:


Certainly there are PUNISHMENT for erring Electoral officers, including the INEC chairman himself.

But what ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES are you referring to, that you said INEC Staff carried out?

It was d gentleman who I was conversing with who said that inec performed illegal activities and that they couldn't b punished for such cos according 2 him there are no laws that could b used to punish them. Am not too sure what he was referring

35824L:
[s] For the first time ever in our electoral process, election observers were allowed into INEC's situation room during this election. If you don't know what a situation room is, it is the engine room of INEC's operations, where INEC monitors field operations and gets feedback from personnel on the ground about their work and challenges as it concerned the elections. After the elections, ALL election observers, including the pro-PDP ones, said they had no knowledge of a server! If there was a server, don't you think they would have known in the course of their observations in the situation room? Only Atiku is talking of server. Only Atiku!!

Respectfully mister,I served as a presiding officer and I have first contact with the electorates than those in what situation room you might want to ascribe anything to. Relying on people behind the TV for pertinent information such as this is unfortunate for your type and I advice you retract your submission.
Since you're so conversant with inec regulations and procedure to the point of even educating us about inec situation room,don't you think it is an affront to your dignity(provided you have one) not to be acquainted with the laws guiding the conduct of elections in your own country
Having said that,I'm not trying to establish if there's a server or not I only narrated within the electoral guidelines and what was expected of me as the PO ( which I received proper training for) to do in my polling unit.
Thank you