amliftedhigher:
He is correct. Inec violated the new 2022 electoral law

dat9jaguy:





How? Where was it stated that you can only transmit the result through IREV?

Runninghare:
His words: ” We are here to reiterate that the Electoral Commission is violating the law. This law was read to the Commission. It was shown to the Commission. The Commission said yes, it has seen it and would continue to violate the law until it finishes…”

Asked which law had INEC violated, he said it was Electoral Act 64 sub-section 4 and section 65 of the Electoral Act 2022 as amended.

Datti Baba-Ahmed said the Act has stipulated that it was mandatory that at the completion of an election, the result must be transmitted to what was called IIREV.

” Furthermore, an Electoral Officer must not document the election result without ensuring that the result has been transmitted to the IREV.”

When told that the INEC Chairman said that doing so was not a must, Datti Baba-Ahmed said it was a law that stands.

What does Electoral Act 64 sub-section 4 and section 65 of the Electoral Act 2022 say...

64. (1) The presiding officer shall endorse the word “rejected” on the ballot
paper rejected under section 52 (1) of this Act and for any other reason,
and the ballot papers shall not be counted except otherwise allowed
by the returning officer who may overrule the presiding officer.
(2) If an objection to the decision of a presiding officer to reject a ballot
paper is raised by a candidate or a polling agent at the time the decision
is made, the presiding officer shall add to the word “rejected”, the
phrase “but objected to”.
(3) The presiding officer shall prepare a statement on rejected ballot
papers, stating the number rejected, the reason for rejection and their
serial number, and he or she shall on request, allow a candidate or a
polling agent to copy the statement.
(4) A collation officer or returning officer at an election shall collate and
announce the result of an election, subject to his or her verification
and confirmation that the—
[b](a) number of accredited voters stated on the collated result are
correct and consistent with the number of accredited voters
recorded and transmitted directly from polling units under section
47 (2) of this Act; and
(b) the votes stated on the collated result are correct and consistent
with the votes or results recorded and transmitted directly from
polling units under section 60 (4) of this Act.
(5) Subject to subsection (1), a collation officer or returning officer shall
use the number of accredited voters recorded and transmitted directly
from polling units under section 47 (2) of this Act and the votes or results
recorded and transmitted directly from polling units under section 60
(4) of this Act to collate and announce the result of an election if a
collated result at his or a lower level of collation is not correct.
(6) Where during collation of results, there is a dispute regarding a collated
result or the result of an election from any polling unit, the collation
officer or returning officer shall use the following to determine the
correctness of the disputed result—
(a) the original of the disputed collated result for each polling unit
where the election is disputed;
(b) the smart card reader or other technology device used for
accreditation of voters in each polling unit where the election is
disputed for the purpose of obtaining accreditation data directly
from the smart card reader or technology device;
(c) data of accreditation recorded and transmitted directly from each
polling unit where the election is disputed as prescribed under
section 47 (2) of this Act; and
(d) the votes and result of the election recorded and transmitted
directly from each polling unit where the election is disputed, as
prescribed under section 60 (4) of this Act.[/b]
(7) If the disputed result under subsection (6) were otherwise found not to
be correct, the collation officer or returning officer shall re-collate and
announce a new result using the information in subsection (6) (a)-(d).
( Where the dispute under subsection (6) arose at the level of collation
and the returning officer has satisfied the provision of subsection (6)
(a)-(d), the returning officer shall accordingly declare the winner of the
election.

(b) the smart card reader or other technology device used for
accreditation of voters in each polling unit where the election is
disputed for the purpose of obtaining accreditation data directly
from the smart card reader or technology device;
(c) data of accreditation recorded and transmitted directly from each
polling unit where the election is disputed as prescribed under
section 47 (2) of this Act; and
(d) the votes and result of the election recorded and transmitted
directly from each polling unit where the election is disputed, as
prescribed under section 60 (4) of this Act.
(7) If the disputed result under subsection (6) were otherwise found not to
be correct, the collation officer or returning officer shall re-collate and
announce a new result using the information in subsection (6) (a)-(d).
( Where the dispute under subsection (6) arose at the level of collation
and the returning officer has satisfied the provision of subsection (6)
(a)-(d), the returning officer shall accordingly declare the winner of the
election.
(2) A decision of the returning officer under subsection (1) may be reviewed
by an election tribunal or court of competent jurisdiction in an election
petition proceedings under this Act.

---

So guys, here is the above,,,
What are your takes

nrexzy:

Read the 2022 electorate law

dat9jaguy:



I have read it, it is you that needs read it.

nrexzy:


Oh sorry...
My bad..

Understand it