WHAT EXACTLY DID THE ELECTORAL ACT SAY ABOUT THE ELECTION RESULTS.??

***(This piece might be very long, but then, if you really need more insight about the electronic transmission wahalla, and what the Electoral Act really says about it, then you have to try and read through to the end..)

I am going to be dropping the quotes, with little comments after them.

148. The Commission may, subject to the provisions of this Act, issue regulations, guidelines, or manuals for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this Act and for its administration.

149. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act, any defect or error arising from any actions taken by an official of the Commission in relation to any notice, form or document made or given or other things done by the official in pursuance of the provisions of the Constitution or of this Act, or any rules made thereunder remain valid, unless otherwise challenged and declared invalid by a competent court of law or tribunal.

For those that would argue that the INEC Guidelines are not recognised by the Electoral Act.., the Section-148 had provided answers to that argument.

Even though the INEC Guidelines should not override the Electoral Act,, but then, wherever the Electoral Act give powers to the “Commission”, then the words that are contained inside the “INEC Guidelines” and “Manuals” would become the Authentic Law with respect to those sections where the Electoral Act gave powers to the Commission..

---

50. —(1) Voting at an election under this Act shall be by open secret ballot.

(2) Subject to section 63 of this Act, voting at an election and “transmission” of results under this Act shall be in accordance with the procedure determined by the Commission.

(3) A voter on receiving a ballot paper shall mark it in the manner prescribed by the Commission.

(4) All ballots at an election under this Act at any polling station shall be deposited in the ballot box in the open view of the public.

Refer back to Section-148..
The “INEC Guidelines” fully prescribed the manner for the “Transmission” of the results. Inside the INEC Guidelines, the INEC made it very clear that they developed a system known as the “Collation Support and Result Verification System” (CSRVS), in order facilitate the “TRANSMISSION” of Results and Accreditation Data.

It should be made very clear at this point; that the Online Results-Viewing Portal (IREV) is just the platform for the public to view the supposed Polling-Units Results that were uploaded to the online viewing portal,, AND NOT THE REQUIRED PLATFORM WHICH THE INEC DEDICATED FOR THE ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION AND COLLATION AND VERIFICATION OF RESULTS, AS POINTED OUT INSIDE THE ELECTORAL ACT.

The platform for the E-transmission and E-collation as required by the Electoral Act is the CSRVS, and not really the IREV.

60. —(1) The Presiding officer shall, after counting the votes at the polling unit, enter the votes scored by each candidate in a form to be prescribed by the Commission as the case may be.

(2) The form shall be signed and stamped by the presiding officer and counter signed by the candidates or their polling agents where available at the polling unit.

(3) The presiding officer shall give to the polling agents and the police officer where available a copy each of the completed forms after it has been duly signed as provided under subsection (2).

(4) The presiding officer shall count and announce the result at the polling unit.

(5) The presiding officer shall “transfer” the results including total number of accredited voters and the results of the ballot in a manner as prescribed by the Commission.

(6) A presiding officer who wilfully contravenes any provision of this section commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not more than N500,000 or imprisonment for a term of at least six months.

The Commission, as referred to in this Act, is the INEC.

Refer back to Section-148..
The INEC fully prescribed the manner for the “Transfer” of the results (including the “transfer” of the total number of accredited voters) inside the INEC Guidelines.

62. —(1) After the recording and announcement of the result, the presiding officer shall “deliver” same along with election materials under security and accompanied by the candidates or their polling agents, where available, to such person as may be prescribed by the Commission.

(2) The Commission shall compile, maintain and update, on a continuous basis, a register of election results to be known as the “National Electronic Register of Election Results” which shall be a distinct database or repository of polling unit by polling unit results, including collated election results, of each election conducted by the Commission in the Federation, and the Register of Election Results shall be kept in electronic format by the Commission at its national headquarters.

(3) Any person or political party may obtain from the Commission, on payment of such fees as may be determined by the Commission, a certified true copy of any election result kept in the National Electronic Register of Election Results for a State, Local Government, Area Council, registration area or Electoral Ward or Polling Unit, as the case may be, and the certified true copy may be in printed or electronic format.

Take note of the word “Deliver” in the Section-62(1); which is totally different from the word “Transfer” which was used in Section-60(5)..

***(This might be the ONLY part of the Electoral Act which the INEC-Chairman read, and believed that the Electoral Act provided for ONLY the Manual Delivery of the Results)..

Also note that the Electoral Act also didn't expressly dictate the exact methods of collation to be deployed.
But then, no matter the method of Collation used,, Section-64 should be checks-and-balances tool which must be applied.
And there is a strong penalty for violating Section-64.


NOW, LET US TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT SECTION-64..

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—

(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.

(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).

(8.) 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.

(9) A returning officer or collation officer, as the case may be, commits an offence if he or she intentionally collates or announces a false result and is liable on conviction to a fine of N5,000,000 or imprisonment for a term of at least three years or both.

A result -- According to Section-64(9) -- is regarded as “False Result” if it didn't follow the procedures specified in Section-64(6)-(a-to-d).. -- which is, Electronic Transmission and Collation, and Verification.

65. —(1) The decision of the returning officer shall be final on any question arising from or relating to—
(a) unmarked ballot paper;
(b) rejected ballot paper; and
(c) declaration of scores of candidates and the return of a candidate:
Provided that the Commission shall have the power within seven days to review the declaration and return where the Commission determines that the said declaration and return was not made voluntarily or was made contrary to the provisions of the law, regulations and guidelines, and manual for 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.

Going by Section-65(1):
It simply means that the returning officer can upturn the decisions of the Presiding Officer, or those of the collation officers if -- within the review period -- there were errors which the returning officer had corrected.

68. The Commission shall cause to be posted on its notice board and website, a notice showing the candidates at the election and their scores, and the person declared as elected or returned at the election.

134. —(1) An election may be questioned on any of the following grounds—

(a) a person whose election is questioned was, at the time of the election, not qualified to contest the election ;

(b) the election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or noncompliance with the provisions of this Act; or

(c) the respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election.

(2) An act or omission which may be contrary to an instruction or directive of the Commission or of an officer appointed for the purpose of the election but which is not contrary to the provisions of this Act shall NOT of itself be a ground for questioning the election.

(3) With respect to subsection (1) (a), a person is deemed to be qualified for an elective office and his election shall not be questioned on grounds of qualification if, with respect to the particular election in question, he meets the applicable requirements of sections 65, 106, 131 or 177 of the Constitution and he is not, as may be applicable, in breach of sections 66, 107, 137 or 182 of the Constitution.

135. —(1) An election shall not be liable to be invalidated by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of this Act if it appears to the Election Tribunal or Court that the election was conducted substantially in accordance with the “principles” of this Act and that the non-compliance did not affect “substantially” the result of the election.

(2) An election shall not be liable to be questioned by reason of a defect in the title or want of title of the person conducting the election or acting in the office, provided such a person has the right or authority of the Commission to conduct the election.

(3) No election shall be questioned or cancelled by reason that there is a mistake, conflict or inconsistency in the date contained in the result of such election signed by a returning officer or any other officer of the Commission.

136. —(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), if the Tribunal or the Court as the case may be, determines that a candidate who was returned as elected was “not validly elected on any ground”, the Tribunal or Court shall nullify the election and order the Commission to conduct a fresh election not later than 90 days after the—

(a) decision if an appeal is not filed against the decision; or

(b) nullification of the election by the court having final appellate jurisdiction in respect of the said election.

(2) Where an election tribunal or court nullifies an election on the ground that the person who obtained the highest votes at the election was not qualified to contest the election, the election tribunal or court shall declare the person with the second highest number of valid votes cast at the election who satisfies the requirements of the Constitution and this Act as duly elected:
Provided that the person with the second highest number of valid votes cast at the election remains a member of the political party on which platform he contested the election otherwise, the candidate with the next highest number of votes in the election and who satisfies the same conditions shall be declared the winner of the election.

(3) If the tribunal or the court determines that a candidate who was returned as elected was not validly elected on the ground that he did not score the majority of valid votes cast at the election, the election tribunal or the Court, as the case may be, shall declare as elected the candidate who scored the highest number of valid votes cast at the election and satisfied the requirements of the Constitution and this Act.

(4) All objections filed in an election petition shall be determined at the time of final judgment.

137. It shall NOT be necessary for a party who alleges non-compliance with the provisions of this Act for the conduct of elections to call oral evidence, if originals or certified true copies manifestly disclose the non-compliance alleged.

I PURPOSELY DID NOT DROP ANY QUOTES FROM THE “INEC GUIDELINES”..
SO THAT WE WON'T CONFUSE OURSELVES..

ALL THE QUOTES WHICH I HAVE DROPPED HERE ARE ALL QUOTED ENTIRELY FROM THE ELECTORAL ACT OF 2022.

For those who continue to argue that Transmission is not inside the Electoral Act...

I guess that these sections of the Electoral Act which I quoted here might have done justice to their argument..

I also hope that I have done justice to the INEC’s concepts of the “IREV-Portal” and that of the “CSRVS Collation System”..




**MODIFIED....

For Those That Are Saying One-or-Two Things About “MANUAL TRANSMISSION”....
(... Just because the phrase “Transmitted DIRECTLY From The Polling Units”, didn't have the word “Electronically” inserted inside it, nor had any form of technological innovation expressed in the phrase, they now assumed that the “Transmission” could also mean “Manual Transmission” ...)

The truth is..
There is nothing like the so-called Manual Transmission mentioned inside the Electoral Act Either..
Thus, there is no need assuming it At-all..

In fact, the usage of the phrase in the Act and functions of the so-called “Transmission” best describes an “Electronic Transmission” more than it describes a “Manual Transmission”.


..

I'm still not understanding

BluntCrazeMan:
For those who continue to argue that Transmission is not inside the Electoral Act...

I guess that these sections of the Electoral Act which I quoted here might have done justice to their argument..

It is simple.transmission can be manual or electronic.not transmitting it electronically does not invalidate the result.non transmission invalidates the results

I'm waiting to see if Obi and Atiku will choose to waste money going to the tribunal

senatordave1:


It is simple.transmission can be manual or electronic.not transmitting it electronically does not invalidate the result.non transmission invalidates the results

Please explain better to me..
Let me understand what the Phrase “DIRECTLY FROM POLLING UNITS” in Section-64(4)-(a-&-b).. And also, in Section-64(5) Actually means...




...
Meanwhile,, both the Electoral Act (Section -64(6)..) and the INEC-Guidelines made it compulsory that the “DIRECTLY” Transmitted Results must be a part of the Electoral Process for the sole purpose of “Verification”, and that it should be made available after the elections to anyone who demands for the data and paid the stipulated fee.

Parachoko:
I'm waiting to see if Obi and Atiku will choose to waste money going to the tribunal

It's their money..




If they choose to waste their money, it's supposed to be their problem..

Not Your Problem..

BluntCrazeMan:
Please explain better to me..
Let me understand what the word “DIRECTLY” in Section-64(4)-(a-&-b).. And also, in Section-64(5) Actually means...

U have too much time...
These pple will lie and say all manner if things to justify their fraudulent win

BluntCrazeMan:
Please explain better to me..
Let me understand what the Phrase “DIRECTLY FROM POLLING UNITS” in Section-64(4)-(a-&-b).. And also, in Section-64(5) Actually means...

Directly from polling units to the wards and so on

senatordave1:


It is simple.transmission can be manual or electronic.not transmitting it electronically does not invalidate the result.non transmission invalidates the results

The greedy politicians knew of the two modes of transmission of the results and they simply exploit the weakness clause and use it against the voters.

They knew since one can use manual transmission where the fraud came from then they are good to go.

The electoral act is where they used to manipulate the public

senatordave1:


Directly from polling units to the wards and so on

Cool..



Section-148 still comes into play.
There is an ambiguity in what you're saying here.
This is now a situation of “Either this or that.”...

Thus,, the Electoral Act gave the Commission the power to make laws through GUIDELINES AND MANUALS, in order to make ambiguous sections clearer..



.........

saintopus:


The greedy politicians knew of the two modes of transmission of the results and they simply exploit the weakness clause and use it against the voters.

They knew since one can use manual transmission where the fraud came from then they are good to go.

The electoral act is where they used to manipulate the public

The Electoral Act didn't say Manual Transmission Either..
So, nobody should go and assume what the Electoral Act didn't actually say .



Section-148 still comes into play.
There is an ambiguity in what you're saying here.
This is now a situation of “Either this or that.”...

Thus,, the Electoral Act gave the Commission the power to make laws through GUIDELINES AND MANUALS, in order to make ambiguous sections clearer..

saintopus:


The greedy politicians knew of the two modes of transmission of the results and they simply exploit the weakness clause and use it against the voters.

They knew since one can use manual transmission where the fraud came from then they are good to go.

The electoral act is where they used to manipulate the public

Fraud can come from both manual and electronic.

Rikidony:
I'm still not understanding

Very Simple..


ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION is in the Electoral Act 2022..

senatordave1:


Fraud can come from both manual and electronic.

Ok then...
So, why did they give fully-detailed guidelines for Electronic Transmission, and then, come back again to do “Manual Transmission”.??


Even if there could be Fraud with Electronic Transmission, it wouldn't have bothered anybody so much.

50. —(1) Voting at an election under this Act shall be by open secret ballot.

(2) Subject to section 63 of this Act, voting at an election and “transmission” of results under this Act shall be in accordance with the procedure determined by the Commission.

This is as simple as ABC.

Because there is no mandatory procedure/provision on how to transmit the results whether by Inec or Nigeria law, a clause was made that determination on how to transmit the results will be the decision of the commission ( INEC).

Mahmood is only the chairman of the commission, there are other people in the same INEC commission that determine which method will be suitable for the commission to transmit the results.

helinues:
Toh

This guy again...!!

BluntCrazeMan:
The Electoral Act didn't say Manual Transmission Either..
So, nobody should go and assume what the Electoral Act didn't actually say .



Section-148 still comes into play.
There is an ambiguity in what you're saying here.
This is now a situation of “Either this or that.”...

Thus,, the Electoral Act gave the Commission the power to make laws through GUIDELINES AND MANUALS, in order to make ambiguous sections clearer..

The guidelines is out of this.it can never be used to nullify any election, the apex court have overflogged this.transmission can be manual or electronic

senatordave1:


The guidelines is out of this.it can never be used to nullify any election, the apex court have overflogged this.transmission can be manual or electronic

The words of the Electoral Act are very clear.

The Apex Court cannot decide a case based on a section (or sections) of the Electoral Act that is (or are) not definite.

BluntCrazeMan:
The Electoral Act didn't say Manual Transmission Either..
So, nobody should go and assume what the Electoral Act didn't actually say .



Section-148 still comes into play.
There is an ambiguity in what you're saying here.
This is now a situation of “Either this or that.”...

Thus,, the Electoral Act gave the Commission the power to make laws through GUIDELINES AND MANUALS, in order to make ambiguous sections clearer..

Manual transmission and Electronic Transmission are the two modes of delivering results.

Manual transmission is opened to fraud.

Electronic Transmission have greater accuracy than manual

BluntCrazeMan:




Ok then...
So, why did they give fully-detailed guidelines for Electronic Transmission, and then, come back again to do “Manual Transmission”.??


Even if there could be Fraud with Electronic Transmission, it wouldn't have bothered anybody so much.

My brother,what is in the electoral act is what is legal.as you can see, the electoral act made use of electronic accreditation clearly electronic by a tech device.it never did same for transmission and collation.same thing happened to the card reader

BluntCrazeMan:




Ok then...
So, why did they give fully-detailed guidelines for Electronic Transmission, and then, come back again to do “Manual Transmission”.??


Even if there could be Fraud with Electronic Transmission, it wouldn't have bothered anybody so much.

Good thinking, good product 😁😁😁

BluntCrazeMan:
It's their money..




If they choose to waste their money, it's supposed to be their problem..

Not Your Problem..

It seems you're still in pains Obi and Atiku lost woefully

Parachoko:
It seems you're still in pains Obi and Atiku lost woefully

You're the one over-beating yourself over something that is not of any concern to you

saintopus:


Manual transmission and Electronic Transmission are the two modes of delivering results.

Manual transmission is opened to fraud.

Electronic Transmission have greater accuracy than manual

Well..



It is up to the courts to decide.

BluntCrazeMan:
The words of the Electoral Act are very clear.

The Apex Court cannot decide a case based on a section (or sections) of the Electoral Act that is (or are) not definite.

You are only deceiving yourself.whichever form of transmission employed by inec is legal

BluntCrazeMan:
Gerfield1, Litigator, Penguin2, Racoon, Naptu2.

I think you have explained it all. The INEC Guidelines is bound by the 1999 CFRN.

What the Supreme Court has said is that the guidelines itself cannot override the Electoral Act.