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

You didn't read the part where he said he has an appointment letter from INEC to corroborate his claims

MadamExcellency:


You didn't read the part where he said he has an appointment letter from INEC to corroborate his claims

Doesn't matter

Lovelive:

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








*COPIED*

It is not compulsory to transmit electronically but legally mandatory to do so manually

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?

Sir, if l juxtapose your contribution above with the one l made earlier (quoted below) you would see that there is a time-lag between your post, my post below and the ACTUAL date of the election, which are all corroborated by the contents of my post below.

- Your guideline was issued on JANUARY 12th, almost a Month before the date of election and you relied on these guidelines, throughout. that guideline proposed that you do electronic transmission of results, as well as accreditation, in line with the proposed Amended electoral Act of 2019. At this satge of Jan 12th, everything was still going according to plan.

- TWO days before election, when it became clear to the INEC Chairman that the Amended Electoral Bill of 2019 will not be signed into law by the President (and it would therefore be illegal to rely on it to conduct the election, vis-a-vis the use of Electronic Transfer of result (something the Electoral Act/LAW of 2010 prohibits), INEC Chairman issued a Press Statement to counter the earlier guidelines he had given his P.O's and ther field officers but l guess that due to logistics of shifting the election, they could not Print out another Handbook as guideline but since the Briefing was done on TV, it was assumed that the information will trickle down to all INEC Staff.

- Less than A day to the election, the election itself was shifted and that was when INEC again told us that there was attempts by some actors to Hack into Servers and that INEC Servers will be offline and not used for Transmission of election., which again fits into the post l quoted below.
So, it was a combination of trying to organise the election within Applicable, current Laws and the "anticipated but refused" Bill (not law yet) of the 2019 Act and trying to stay legal and prevent possible Court nullification of the whole exercise as not being compliant with the Law, that made INEc Chairman to change his guidelines at the last minute but l guess some field officers in remote areas may not be privy to on th spot information, when in the field.

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 (INEC) 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.”

Every P.O who claims to transmit election result electronically, though an effort in futility, was "acting outside of the constitutionally-recognised rules of the elections, stipulated by the Electoral Act/Law 2010, though some did so out of ignorance/lack of current information about the current situation on ground, as they were relying on the guidelines INEC gave them about a month ago, guidelines which where then invalidated within twenty four hours of/to the election proper, itself.

Now, would the Court rely on the testimony of a P.O or RATECH who acted based on an invalidated directive and contrary to the constitutionally recognised law guiding the election?
I know the Court of Law does not give life to illegality and the actions of such P.O's and RATECH are obviosuly illegal.

Thank you.

Generalpatton:

Doesn't matter

It means any illegality by INEC nullifies the elections

MadamExcellency:


It means any illegality by INEC nullifies the elections

Stay there and be waiting for the court to nullify a 200 billion naira election

35824L:
Stay there and be waiting for the court to nullify a 200 billion naira election

Even a trillion naira election may be nullified.

Daboomb:


Sir, if l juxtapose your contribution above with the one l made earlier (quoted below) you would see that there is a time-lag between your post, my post below and the ACTUAL date of the election, which are all corroborated by the contents of my post below.

- Your guideline was issued on JANUARY 12th, almost a Month before the date of election and you relied on these guidelines, throughout. that guideline proposed that you do electronic transmission of results, as well as accreditation, in line with the proposed Amended electoral Act of 2019. At this satge of Jan 12th, everything was still going according to plan.

- TWO days before election, when it became clear to the INEC Chairman that the Amended Electoral Bill of 2019 will not be signed into law by the President (and it would therefore be illegal to rely on it to conduct the election, vis-a-vis the use of Electronic Transfer of result (something the Electoral Act/LAW of 2010 prohibits), INEC Chairman issued a Press Statement to counter the earlier guidelines he had given his P.O's and ther field officers but l guess that due to logistics of shifting the election, they could not Print out another Handbook as guideline but since the Briefing was done on TV, it was assumed that the information will trickle down to all INEC Staff.

- Less than A day to the election, the election itself was shifted and that was when INEC again told us that there was attempts by some actors to Hack into Servers and that INEC Servers will be offline and not used for Transmission of election., which again fits into the post l quoted below.
So, it was a combination of trying to organise the election within Applicable, current Laws and the "anticipated but refused" Bill (not law yet) of the 2019 Act and trying to stay legal and prevent possible Court nullification of the whole exercise as not being compliant with the Law, that made INEc Chairman to change his guidelines at the last minute but l guess some field officers in remote areas may not be privy to on th spot information, when in the field.




Every P.O who claims to transmit election result electronically, though an effort in futility, was "acting outside of the constitutionally-recognised rules of the elections, stipulated by the Electoral Act/Law 2010, though some did so out of ignorance/lack of current information about the current situation on ground, as they were relying on the guidelines INEC gave them about a month ago, guidelines which where then invalidated within twenty four hours of/to the election proper, itself.

Now, would the Court rely on the testimony of a P.O or RATECH who acted based on an invalidated directive and contrary to the constitutionally recognised law guiding the election?
I know the Court of Law does not give life to illegality and the actions of such P.O's and RATECH are obviosuly illegal.

Thank you.

For the avoidance of doubt, you've made quite an elaborate submission on this subject and I want to take the time to commend your detailed analysis. However, I would like to point out that no election is 100% perfect and it is expected that INEC should improve as a matter of urgency because we experienced so many unfortunate scenario and cases during the last election that if I should start analysing it here is going to spark a lot of danger.
Since the issue of who should transmit the election/existence of server and other issue related are before the tribunal, I think the tribunal should be able to resolve it. However, I would like us to understand that just like our constitution, there are many loopholes in our electoral law and something urgent should be done. Personally suggested some recommendations to be implemented by INEC in the suggestion booklet given to us for subsequent election and I hope they act on it as Prof. Said they've collated all for expedient action.
Thank you sir.

Daboomb:


Sir, if l juxtapose your contribution above with the one l made earlier (quoted below) you would see that there is a time-lag between your post, my post below and the ACTUAL date of the election, which are all corroborated by the contents of my post below.

- Your guideline was issued on JANUARY 12th, almost a Month before the date of election and you relied on these guidelines, throughout. that guideline proposed that you do electronic transmission of results, as well as accreditation, in line with the proposed Amended electoral Act of 2019. At this satge of Jan 12th, everything was still going according to plan.

- TWO days before election, when it became clear to the INEC Chairman that the Amended Electoral Bill of 2019 will not be signed into law by the President (and it would therefore be illegal to rely on it to conduct the election, vis-a-vis the use of Electronic Transfer of result (something the Electoral Act/LAW of 2010 prohibits), INEC Chairman issued a Press Statement to counter the earlier guidelines he had given his P.O's and ther field officers but l guess that due to logistics of shifting the election, they could not Print out another Handbook as guideline but since the Briefing was done on TV, it was assumed that the information will trickle down to all INEC Staff.

- Less than A day to the election, the election itself was shifted and that was when INEC again told us that there was attempts by some actors to Hack into Servers and that INEC Servers will be offline and not used for Transmission of election., which again fits into the post l quoted below.
So, it was a combination of trying to organise the election within Applicable, current Laws and the "anticipated but refused" Bill (not law yet) of the 2019 Act and trying to stay legal and prevent possible Court nullification of the whole exercise as not being compliant with the Law, that made INEc Chairman to change his guidelines at the last minute but l guess some field officers in remote areas may not be privy to on th spot information, when in the field.




Every P.O who claims to transmit election result electronically, though an effort in futility, was "acting outside of the constitutionally-recognised rules of the elections, stipulated by the Electoral Act/Law 2010, though some did so out of ignorance/lack of current information about the current situation on ground, as they were relying on the guidelines INEC gave them about a month ago, guidelines which where then invalidated within twenty four hours of/to the election proper, itself.

Now, would the Court rely on the testimony of a P.O or RATECH who acted based on an invalidated directive and contrary to the constitutionally recognised law guiding the election?
I know the Court of Law does not give life to illegality and the actions of such P.O's and RATECH are obviosuly illegal.

Thank you.

You're really living in a bubble bros. Which serious organization issues directives on change in operational procedures to its staff on TV!! I'm sure you're smarter than this, you're just clutching unto straw to keep alive a dead argument.

It will be highly irresponsible of INEC to even say they expected their staff to get the information about change in SOP via TV. Every organization has its own internal channel of communication and i'm sure INEC is not an exception. As a matter of fact, this ur assertion may mean INEC used subterfuge to deceive everyone while going ahead to do electronic transmission. Do you know the implication of that? Pls think before you write!!

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

you are not brilliant

MadamExcellency:


It means any illegality by INEC nullifies the elections

Yes but it wasn't taken up by atiku

Memphitz537:
We currently have 2 sets of foolish people in Nigeria....
1).The fools that voted Buhari.
2). The fools currently following BBN 4.
The worst is that these 2 sets of fools outnumber the intelligent ones by faaaaaaaar!!!

Guy abeg where I fit locate you, buy you cold beer.
Your sense too dope.

The way many of them dey reason, na e be one big problem wey we dey face since Na dam plenty pass.

Na dem chose the failure wey dey Aso Villa, before that one choose himself again, even when e no win.

I tire o.

teadrake:

For the avoidance of doubt, you've made quite an elaborate submission on this subject and I want to take the time to commend your detailed analysis. However, I would like to point out that no election is 100% perfect and it is expected that INEC should improve as a matter of urgency because we experienced so many unfortunate scenario and cases during the last election that if I should start analysing it here is going to spark a lot of danger.
Since the issue of who should transmit the election/existence of server and other issue related are before the tribunal, I think the tribunal should be able to resolve it. However, I would like us to understand that just like our constitution, there are many loopholes in our electoral law and something urgent should be done. Personally suggested some recommendations to be implemented by INEC in the suggestion booklet given to us for subsequent election and I hope they act on it as Prof. Said they've collated all for expedient action.
Thank you sir.

I agree 100% with your submission Sir.
That election was fraught with so much imperfections.
Like you said, no election is perfect...but we should strive to IMPROVE on the conduct, as we move forward.

I have seen videos, l have personally witnessed a lot of rigging during the elections and as fair-minded people, we can agree that both major parties are guilty of electoral malfeanse, with respect to this last election.

If l compare the last election to the 2015 election, l would say the 2015 was conducted much better than this one, IMO.
Chairman Mahmoud needs to be more decisive in decision making, one of his major blunder was to agree not to use the military to assist in the elections. Why do l say this?
We all know how evil our Politicians are, we know they would go to any desperate length to thwart the wil of the people because they dont want our votes to count, as they know we will reject the frauds among them.

We are all also aware of how corrupt and cowardly, our Police force has become (this corruption has spread into ur Youth Corpers as well!). As far as they are concerned, the election is about making as much money as possible, from corrupt Politicians.

If we put all the above together, it puts forward the need to have the military to ASSIST the other security agents, to maintain law and order during elections.
Without fear or favor, l think Nigerians still respect the military more than the Police because they are less corrupt in "open service" (as opposed to institutionalised corruption within their heirachy), they can show bravery in the face of battle (unlike Policemne that remove their Uniform and run away like rats!) and they are the only ones that the Political thugs respect.

We need the military to "police" our Ballot boxes, ensure that citizens can vote without fear from political thugs hwo come with guns and dangerous weapons to kill and maim voters on behalf of politicians.

It was the lack of adequate security that made a mess of this last election.

But having said all that, we should also realise that INEC was facing a new and unpreviously experienced threat in the form of HACKING of its Servers.
And we are in an era of technology but it is shameful (and l think that angle should be properly investigated so perpetrators can be brought to book, to serve as a deterent in future elections)..it is shameful that an aspirant that wants to rule this country, provided money to RECRUIT HACKERS whose job is to compromise and manipulate election results being transmitted to INEC servers, for their own benefit.
That is a TREASONABLE OFFENCE.
INEC was definitely not prepared for such challenges though l hope they have learnt their lessons.
- INEC need to focus on protection of its Assets
- INEC needs to be better prepared in deploying human and technical resources to the field
- INEC needs to employ people trained in technology, the best that are available and shun Nepotistic employments
- INEC needs to train and retrain its staff and make sure they are patriotic and honest
- INEC needs to develop its one Network backbone, harden it and make it hack-proof
- E-Voting is the way to go and INEC must focus on ways to delivering "Network and Power" in remote areas, to ensure that their is connection at all times, so we can use E-voting.
These are just my own submissions.

I want to thank people like you who had made the discussion worthwhile and civil.
Have a blessed day ahead.

Buckubuck:


You're really living in a bubble bros. Which serious organization issues directives on change in operational procedures to its staff on TV!! I'm sure you're smarter than this, you're just clutching unto straw to keep alive a dead argument.

It will be highly irresponsible of INEC to even say they expected their staff to get the information about change in SOP via TV. Every organization has its own internal channel of communication and i'm sure INEC is not an exception. As a matter of fact, this ur assertion may mean INEC used subterfuge to deceive everyone while going ahead to do electronic transmission. Do you know the implication of that? Pls think before you write!!

Well, that is your cup of tea, we will all be alive to witness the decision of the Supreme Court .....
Even President Trump of All mighty America, issues "State Policy Directives" on Twitter ......and it gets obeyed.

I am sure you expect, in your own "wisdom", that when the INEC chair needs to make "policy changes", a day to the election, he would go and Print it on Paper and then start to look for ways to distribute it, like using UPS or he would go on a Canoe and paddle it to people in the Creeks.
If you dont know the reason why they call "TV" a means of mass-communication, that should nto be my own worry, what you know is a function of what you know and it appears you dont know better.

Some of us are always thinking and we dont need you to tell us to think before we write, since that is your own style of engagement and it shows in some of your posts because l am sure that up till now, you still cant digest the implications of the President not signing the Amendment Bill which allows "electronic transmission of results", into Law!
That is why you keep harping on this your Server! Server!! Server!!! despite overwhelming evidence that INEC is prohibitted by law, from transmitting any result electronically to any Server.

Honestly, l have tried more than enough to "educate" people like you but it is obvious that l will have to use an axe to make it sink in (which l cant do).
Let us wait for the Supreme Court to decide and like it happened in the Adeleke/Osun case, Atiku will congratulate Buhari and peeps like you can go-away quietly to lick your 'self-inflicted' wounds.

Have a nice day and dont come back with some "concealed" insult, ...............l full ground, well-well o.