PARADIZEPRIEST:
UNA DEY CRAZY TO CHALLENGE NKE ANYI BU NKE ANYI NDI ALA!
STUPID IGBO PPL.WETIN IGBO PPL WANT SEF?.
THEY CANT EVEN UNIT TO MANAGE APGA IN ONE STATE NA TO SHOUT BIAFRA BAFRA WHILE SPILLING INNOCENT BLOOD.
NDI NZUZU!UMU EKWENZU!
REPENT O CHILDREN OF PERDITION,MISGUIDED TRIBE THAT NEEDS SERIOUS DELIVERANCE FROM BONDAGE OF GENERATIONAL CURSES AND SACRILEDGES. NDI ALA,NDI O JO

BigDolph:
Nothing like Supreme Court governor in anambra.



Anambra no be Imo

preshyusufu:


Anambra no bi Imo, Anambra no bi Imo before you go say jack, supreme court governor don happen.



Let’s wait and see what happens

Golan007:


Very common in the east these days.

timchogon81:
Andy Uba claiming he won majority of votes cast is the most funny story I have heard this year

Abasman008:


I don't even have a way of travelling back to Akwaibom after exams, I just want to survive till 14 wen Exams fubushes .


30th my birthday... I'll have tu to spend Christmas in an empty lodge
My project

Ebukaokeke5:
Now the truth is coming to bare, I was at the polls and I witnessed it all from my polling units to every other polling units I viewed on the media and the people's talk. Those thieves can't steal our mandate.They must be stopped.

fergie001:

The case is DOA.


Yes.....and the case will have very heavy implications.
This is where APGA needs to be careful and get a very good lawyer.

Tannhauser:




This is sooo funny. Damn, Nigeria can be so entertaining. I have always said that the easiest thing in the world is to use one of 'them' against 'themselves'. These people are so consumed by avarice and foolish arrogance that they don't care what price they have to pay to achieve their personal goals,even at the cost of the lives of all their tribesmen. Tufiaaaa....
That their Utopian wetdream called Biafla would be such fun...

garfield1:
The ADP candidate also has a good case,the best.use of any means of voting or accreditation to the exclusion of the manual system is illegal.

The other party not appearing on the ballot depends on what stage they were excluded

Tannhauser:




This is sooo funny. Damn, Nigeria can be so entertaining. I have always said that the easiest thing in the world is to use one of 'them' against 'themselves'. These people are so consumed by avarice and foolish arrogance that they don't care what price they have to pay to achieve their personal goals,even at the cost of the lives of all their tribesmen. Tufiaaaa....
That their Utopian wetdream called Biafla would be such fun...

Golan007:


Very common in the east these days.

fergie001:

It depends on how they weave their case.
How can they prove that people were denied the right to vote because of BVAS.


That is where they killed their case.
They slept on their case.

garfield1:
On the other hand, The Action Democratic Party (ADP) and its candidate Prince Adam Ume-Ezeoke in their petition prayed the tribunal to nullify the election on the grounds that the Bi-Modal Accreditation Verification System (BVAS) is not in the Electoral Act and the malfunctioning ultimately disenfranchised over 90 per cent of the registered voters.

From the above,they weaved their case well.non use of manual accreditation is clearly illegal and fatal.it is very easy to prove.inec in various reports clearly up till election day clearly stated that they used electronic accreditation and clearly forbade manual accreditation and how they cancelled units that failed to use bvas.again,calling polling unit agents and voters is another additional point.it is now left to the court to decide

Golan007:
Very common in the east these days.

fergie001:

INEC in 2015 used SCRs, at some point, ATLs and Z-Pads, and now BVAS.

All these are backed by the Amended Section 52 of the Electoral Act, signed by GEJ before the 2015 election. This Section backed Jega to use the SCRs.

"Voting at an election under this Act shall be in accordance with the procedure determined by INEC."


The Party must call PU agents, complete voter's registers & BVAS reports of not less than two-thirds PUs.

The Party cannot just dump anything on the Court. It must be proven without a loophole.

garfield1:
The position of the supreme court on the card reader has not changed up till this moment...section 52 clearly refers to voting and not accreditation....

INEC is not going to deny non usage of bvas,a simple admittance from them will be enough.inec will remain aloof and apga will bear the burden.moreover,every bvas and election report will officially be issued by inec itself and luckily it is digital and simple,the issue of dumping of evidence will not arise.it is a straightforward election.no one is accusing inec of malpractices but asking the court to interpret the penalty for non usage of manual accreditation

fergie001:

Can you vote without an accreditation?
The NA give powers to the INEC which can carry out its responsibilities without the power or control of the President (Section 160 of the 1999 Constitution).

INEC draws out procedures and guidelines for accreditation and voting which included the Card Readers ( or now BVAS), the SC agreed with this. However, the Supreme Court's notion is that Section 49 should have been removed entirely, so that only electronic accreditation can go on. The Electoral Act 2018 that Buhari didn't sign outlawed manual accreditation entirely.

So, the SC did not outlaw Card Readers. What the SC said was that the card readers can supplement but not intended to "supplant, displace or supersede” the Voters Register or Manual Accreditation.


In this case, INEC will be the first respondent because it has to do with non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, under Sections 138 & 139.

The onus lies on the petitioner to prove his case and not depend on the failings of the respondent.

The Petitioner must therefore prove:
1)that the non-compliance took place;
2} that the non-compliance substantially affected the result of the election. (Section 139)

The SC has set a bar to tackle issues of disenfranchisement of voters.....

In effect, such a Petitioner should summon disenfranchised voters from each Polling Unit/boot or station to testify, Audu v. INEC [2010]; Kakih v. PDP [2014]; PDP v INEC [2014]

The Petitioner must also present the Card reader reports (in this case, BVAS reports) as well as Voters Register and show proof that the disenfranchisement played a substantial role in his defeat, Umana v Udom 2016

BigDolph:
Nothing like Supreme Court governor in anambra.



Anambra no be Imo

garfield1:
Concerning accreditation,we have argued this several in jegede vs aketi etc.inec do not have the power to circumvent any extant or statutory.inec has powers to include or use any other means of accreditation but it cannot and must not stop the use of manual accreditation.manual accreditation is mandatory and cannot be displaced by any other means.its non usage is fatal and amounts to non election legally..no other means of accreditation be it bvas or card reader must overthrow the manual one.this is settled law.....

Obviously, INEC will be the first defendant and unfortunately it will not deny the usage of bvas or the non usage of manual accreditation.. Even though the onus lies on the petitioner to prove his case and not rely on the failings of the defendants,this will not apply here if inec admits that it clearly forbade the usage of manual accreditation or refuse to put up any defence.

Through the presentation of bvas reports,it will clearly show that majority of voters did not vote and were disenfranchised and will Obviously affect the election outcome

fergie001:

How is it different from what I said?
Manual Accreditation cannot be usurped but BVAS accreditation is allowed. The SC has spelt it out succinctly as I elaborately explained.

Why should it not apply here?
Does law change its form depending on the case?
Law cannot change......It will apply in this case and in any other tribunal case. That one is sacrosanct.
What is the ground of appeal of the petitioner?
INEC didn't use manual accreditation hence voters were disenfranchised...Show how voters were disenfranchised.

I have given you judgements and the SC's stance on disenfranchisement;
That also cannot change.

Let the Petitioner do that first....then the Court will know what to do. Call voters who were disenfranchised by Polling Units as witnesses, and show substantially how non-compliance hindered your winning the election.

Tannhauser:




This is sooo funny. Damn, Nigeria can be so entertaining. I have always said that the easiest thing in the world is to use one of 'them' against 'themselves'. These people are so consumed by avarice and foolish arrogance that they don't care what price they have to pay to achieve their personal goals,even at the cost of the lives of all their tribesmen. Tufiaaaa....
That their Utopian wetdream called Biafla would be such fun...