All through the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal, the INEC were busy trying to establish that Electronic Transmission is not a necessity, and that INEC might choose at the last-minute to do Manual Transmission.

They even went as far as bringing a Tribune Newspaper to the Tribunal Court, and tried to portray that the INEC Chairman said that INEC cannot do Electronic Transmission any longer, but they were so silent on the part inside the same news-article which said that INEC would upload the results on the IREV-Portal realtime and instantly.
https://tribuneonlineng.com/we-wont-transmit-raw-figures-of-election-results-inec-chairman/
(We Won’t Transmit Raw Figures Of Election Results, INEC Chairman)


But then, since the issue of the Instant Upload to the IREV-Portal is still contested at the courts, let's leave that particular Judgement for the Judges to fully decide..

But you see the aspect of TRANSMISSION.??
The New Electoral Act 2022 concluded it very well..

Whether INEC chose to use Electronic Transmission, or MANUAL TRANSMISSION,, There MUST Definitely be a Transmission.

Now, let us take a good look at the Section-64 of the Electoral Act,, starting from Sub-Section-(4)...

Section-64:
Sub-Section-(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.

Sub-Section-(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.

Sub-Section-(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.

Sub-Section-(7) If the disputed result under sub-section-(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 sub-section-(6) (a)-(d).

Sub-Section-(8.) Where the dispute under sub-section-(6) arose at the level of collation and the returning officer has satisfied the provision of sub-section-(6) (a)-(d), the returning officer shall accordingly declare the winner of the election.

Sub-Section-(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.

INEC had already agreed that the only way for any Collation Officer to verify the accreditation data at any collation-level is by cross-checking with the accreditation values that were captured inside the BVAS-Machines.
[Section-64(4a)]
And that the only way for any Collation Officer to verify the results at any collation-level is by cross-checking with the photos of the results that were captured inside the BVAS-Machines.
[Section-64(4b)]

The INEC also agreed that these verifications must be done by cross-checking against the Accreditation-Values and Photos of Results that are inside the “MANUALLY” Transmitted BVAS-Machines.

AGREED..
No Wahalla...

But they should also note that, according to the Section-64(4) of the Electoral Act, the “TRANSMISSION” must cut across all the levels of collation, up to the returning level.
(The Electoral Act mentioned “A Collation Officer or Returning Officer”, which means that it involves all the Collation Officers as well as The Returning Officers too - there are no exceptions.)

Thus, all the collation officers along the whole line, and up to the final returning officers must all wait for the Manually Transmitted BVAS-Machines to get to them, before they can commence collation....
WHICH IS SO DIFFICULT, TIME-WASTING, AND HIGHLY UNOBTAINABLE..

And should there be any disputes at any level of collation,, these same MANUALLY TRANSMITTED BVAS-MACHINES must be relied upon in settling the disputes,, and correcting the collated results..
[Section-64(6)]

I don come again with long wahalla sheeyy??




..
Na wetin INEC dey cause be that.
Since they decided to understand the Electoral-Act-2022 from the tail,, then let us all understand it from the tail too,, and then, apply it from the tail too..

They cannot understand it from the tail,, and then come back to start applying it from the head..
IT IS JUST IMPOSSIBLE..

I will still come again later..

Where I am going to suggest some necessary amendments to this current Electoral-Act-2022.



For now,, make we still dey analyse am as e dey,, so that we can understand it well well

Fergie001..

I just decided to think through the brains of the INEC’s counsel,, and to actually apply the way it definitely should be in Section-64 -- that is,, if the TRANSMISSION was actually MANUAL..

Penguin2, Racoon.


Come and see where they failed it woefully in implementing their so-called “Manual Transmission”..

Gerfield1, Litigator..



Come and see what “MANUAL TRANSMISSION” truly entails...

BluntCrazeMan:
All through the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal, the INEC were busy trying to establish that Electronic Transmission is not a necessity, and that INEC might choose at the last-minute to do Manual Transmission.

They even went as far as bringing a Tribune Newspaper to the Tribunal Court, and tried to portray that the INEC Chairman said that INEC cannot do Electronic Transmission any longer, but they were so silent on the part inside the same news-article which said that INEC would upload the results on the IREV-Portal realtime and instantly.
https://tribuneonlineng.com/we-wont-transmit-raw-figures-of-election-results-inec-chairman/
(We Won’t Transmit Raw Figures Of Election Results, INEC Chairman)


But then, since the issue of the Instant Upload to the IREV-Portal is still contested at the courts, let's leave that particular Judgement for the Judges to fully decide..

But you see the aspect of TRANSMISSION.??
The New Electoral Act 2022 concluded it very well..

Whether INEC chose to use Electronic Transmission, or MANUAL TRANSMISSION,, There MUST Definitely be a Transmission.

Now, let us take a good look at the Section-64 of the Electoral Act,, starting from Sub-Section-(4)...
















INEC had already agreed that the only way for any Collation Officer to verify the accreditation data at any collation-level is by cross-checking with the accreditation values that were captured inside the BVAS-Machines.
[Section-64(4a)]
And that the only way for any Collation Officer to verify the results at any collation-level is by cross-checking with the photos of the results that were captured inside the BVAS-Machines.
[Section-64(4b)]

The INEC also agreed that these verifications must be done by cross-checking against the Accreditation-Values and Photos of Results that are inside the “MANUALLY” Transmitted BVAS-Machines.

AGREED..
No Wahalla...

But they should also note that, according to the Section-64(4) of the Electoral Act, the “TRANSMISSION” must cut across all the levels of collation, up to the returning level.
(The Electoral Act mentioned “A Collation Officer or Returning Officer”, which means that it involves all the Collation Officers as well as The Returning Officers too - there are no exceptions.)

Thus, all the collation officers along the whole line, and up to the final returning officers must all wait for the Manually Transmitted BVAS-Machines to get to them, before they can commence collation....
WHICH IS SO DIFFICULT, TIME-WASTING, AND HIGHLY UNOBTAINABLE..

And should there be any disputes at any level of collation,, these same MANUALLY TRANSMITTED BVAS-MACHINES must be relied upon in settling the disputes,, and correcting the collated results..
[Section-64(6)]

I can’t believe that simply logic escapes your brain. How can collation officers be looking at pictures of results on BVAS when the same hard copies are available with polling officers and agents? How is looking at pictures of what was taken better than the original copies whose pictures were taken? Therefore your reasoning is faulty. What the law expects from collation officers is to check the records of accreditation on BVAS and reconcile with what you have on EC8As. That is all. I understand your faulty reasoning is because you just want the judges consider photographs on BVAS so as to tally with what you get on iREV. That can never work. The law is clear: BVAS to check accreditation and form EC8As to check votes cast. No other argument is tenable in
Law.

drlateef:





I can’t believe that simply logic escapes your brain. How can collation officers be looking at pictures of results on BVAS when the same hard copies are available with polling officers and agents? How is looking at pictures of what was taken better than the original copies whose pictures were taken? Therefore your reasoning is faulty. What the law expects from collation officers is to check the records of accreditation on BVAS and reconcile with what you have on EC8As. That is all. I understand your faulty reasoning is because you just want the judges consider photographs on BVAS so as to tally with what you get on iREV. That can never work. The law is clear: BVAS to check accreditation and form EC8As to check votes cast. No other argument is tenable in
Law.

Your submission is wrong at four points which I emboldened..

1st. The Electoral-Act didn't mention any form of verification with hard copies that are with the Polling Officers and AGENTS..
Read the Electoral-Act again abbegg..


2nd.. Read Section-64(4b)..
After reconciliation of the EC8As accreditation values with the BVAS,, The EC8As-results should also be reconciled too. So, why are you interested in only the accreditation values without saying anything about the results itself.??
I repeat.... Read Section-64(4b) all-over again.


3rd.. I wrote a very long post,, but I suggested that the BVAS Should be transmitted manually.,, Just the way INEC Agreed in the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal..
I didn't suggest anything about IREV.
So,, can you just tell me the reason you involved IREV in your response.
(Easy guess... You didn't even understand my sarcastic logic)


4th.. The Electoral-Act in Section-64 made the whole verification process very clear.
Section-64(4a). Verify Collation of Accreditation with the Accreditation Data that were transmitted directly from the Polling-units.
Section-64(4b). Verify Collation of Results with the Results that were transmitted directly from the Polling-units.

BluntCrazeMan:


Your submission is wrong at four points which I emboldened..

1st. The Electoral-Act didn't mention any form of verification with hard copies that are with the Polling Officers and AGENTS..
Read the Electoral-Act again abbegg..


2nd.. Read Section-64(4b)..
After reconciliation of the EC8As accreditation values with the BVAS,, The EC8As-results should also be reconciled too. So, why are you interested in only the accreditation values without saying anything about the results itself.??
I repeat.... Read Section-64(4b) all-over again.


3rd.. I wrote a very long post,, but I suggested that the BVAS Should be transmitted manually.,, Just the way INEC Agreed in the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal..
I didn't suggest anything about IREV.
So,, can you just tell me the reason you involved IREV in your response.
(Easy guess... You didn't even understand my sarcastic logic)


4th.. The Electoral-Act in Section-64 made the whole verification process very clear.
Section-64(4a). Verify Collation of Accreditation with the Accreditation Data that were transmitted directly from the Polling-units.
Section-64(4b). Verify Collation of Results with the Results that were transmitted directly from the Polling-units.

I have stated my points clearly. The law recognises BVAS only for accreditation purpose. It is a primary source of information only for accreditation of voters. Not to chat photo images of EC8As. Because technical problems can prevent proper uploading of EC8As to BVAS. And since the original copies of EC8As are available, checking BVAS for the photo image is unnecessary. So it is established in law that BVAS is the primary source for accreditation details only. Original copies of EC8As are primary source for voting figures, no BVAS, not iREV. That’s where Obi is deliberately getting it wrong because he is clawing the last straw that is useless. To establish over-voting which is not a ground for petition in this case surprisingly, you need voters register and accreditation figures on BVAS. These have been established by recent court judgments which were judicial interpretations of the Electoral Act. Any other argument are abracadabra.

drlateef:




I have stated my points clearly. The law recognises BVAS only for accreditation purpose. It is a primary source of information only for accreditation of voters. Not to chat photo images of EC8As. Because technical problems can prevent proper uploading of EC8As to BVAS. And since the original copies of EC8As are available, checking BVAS for the photo image is unnecessary. So it is established in law that BVAS is the primary source for accreditation details only. Original copies of EC8As are primary source for voting figures, no BVAS, not iREV. That’s where Obi is deliberately getting it wrong because he is clawing the last straw that is useless. To establish over-voting which is not a ground for petition in this case surprisingly, you need voters register and accreditation figures on BVAS. These have been established by recent court judgments which were judicial interpretations of the Electoral Act. Any other argument are abracadabra.

I am not arguing the sources of the electoral information here..

I am just trying to unbundle what the term “MANUAL TRANSMISSION” means; that is, assuming that INEC applied it properly, when seen through the lenses of the Section-64(4 - 8.) of the Electoral-Act-2022..

BVAS-main is the source of Accreditation Data.
No doubts about that.
(Now.. Let us not even talk about the results here.. Let us base on the “Transmission” of Accreditation Data Only)..

The Section-64(4)(a) said that EVERY Collation Officer and including the Returning Officers must use the ACCREDITATION DATA that were “Transmitted Directly From The Polling Units” to verify all their Collated Accreditation Data before they can say that they have completed their collation.
The Electoral Act didn't specify that it is only the WARDS COLLATION OFFICERS THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO CARRY OUT THE CHECK..

Thus, every Collation-Officer and Returning-Officer is mandated under the law to carry out this verification process “using the transmitted BVAS-Machines”, as agreed by the INEC..


Section-64(6)(c) said that where there is a dispute during collation, (the law didn't say that the dispute can only be settled at the Ward-Level or LGA-Level -- the law envisaged that the disputes can come up at any point in the process of collation),, the Collation Officer or the Returning Officer must use the ACCREDITATION DATA that were “Transmitted Directly From The Polling Units” to settle the dispute.


So, you have to stop dragging my argument to where I am not dragging it to.

I am just trying to see and understand the Section-64 of the Electoral Act, if INEC fully and properly applied the MANUAL TRANSMISSION., rather than PARTIAL Application of the method.

🆗



Transmission

Transmission

Transmission❗️❗️❗️😁

Stewpeed dumb niggas

Let them keep deceiving themselves. Very soon their eyes go clear

The criminality of INEC is being unbundled everyday. This country is just a mess.

BluntCrazeMan:



I am not arguing the sources of the electoral information here..

I am just trying to unbundle what the term “MANUAL TRANSMISSION” means; that is, if it has to be applied properly when seen through the lenses of the Section-64(4-8.) of the Electoral-Act-2022..

BVAS-main is the source of Accreditation Data.
No doubts about that.
(Now.. Let us not even talk about the results here.. Let us base on the “Transmission” of Accreditation Data Only)..

The Section-64(4)(a) said that EVERY Collation Officer and including the Returning Officers must use the ACCREDITATION DATA that were “Transmitted Directly From The Polling Units” to verify all their Collated Accreditation Data before they can say that they have completed their collation.
The Electoral Act didn't specify that it is only the WARDS COLLATION OFFICERS THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO CARRY OUT THE CHECK..

Thus, every Collation-Officer and Returning-Officer is mandated under the law to carry out this verification process “using the transmitted BVAS-Machines”, as agreed by the INEC..


Section-64(6)(c) said that where there is a dispute during collation, (the law didn't say that the dispute can only be settled at the Ward-Level or LGA-Level -- the law envisaged that the disputes can come up at any point in the process of collation),, the Collation Officer or the Returning Officer must use the ACCREDITATION DATA that were “Transmitted Directly From The Polling Units” to settle the dispute.


So, you have to stop dragging my argument to where I am not dragging it to.

I am just trying to see and understand the Section-64 of the Electoral Act, if INEC fully and properly applied the MANUAL TRANSMISSION., rather than PARTIAL Application of the method.

“ Thus, every Collation-Officer and Returning-Officer is mandated under the law to carry out this verification process “using the transmitted BVAS-Machines”, as agreed by the INEC..[/color][/i][/b]”


That’s your main argument, isn’t it? Where in the Electoral Act is INEC mandated to transmit results by BVAS alone? INEC guidelines can change from electronic to manual transmission of results. In fact, the judges have stated from their judgements that transmission is more “direct” if done manually by recognising original copies of form EC8As as the primary source of evidence for that purpose. They posited that technical glitches and errors can prevent electronic transmission and therefore, should not be used as primary evidence of transmission of results. Why do you think electronic transmission should be the only mode of transmission according to law? Not according to guidance?

drlateef:




“ Thus, every Collation-Officer and Returning-Officer is mandated under the law to carry out this verification process “using the transmitted BVAS-Machines”, as agreed by the INEC..


That’s your main argument, isn’t it? Where in the Electoral Act is INEC mandated to transmit results by BVAS alone? INEC guidelines can change from electronic to manual transmission of results. In fact, the judges have stated from their judgements that transmission is more “direct” if done manually by recognising original copies of form EC8As as the primary source of evidence for that purpose. They posited that technical glitches and errors can prevent electronic transmission and therefore, should not be used as primary evidence of transmission of results. Why do you think electronic transmission should be the only mode of transmission according to law? Not according to guidance?

Good Morning.

You're really trying so hard to divert this discussion..
But I won't oblige you that.

You see your argument above,, I want you to remove anything that talks about “Results” from it, and replace it with “ACCREDITATION DATA”..

Remove “EC8As” from it, and replace it with “BVAS-Machines”..

Remove “EC8As for the results”, and replace it with “BVAS-Machines for the Accreditation Data”..


Remove “Electronic Transmission” from it, and replace it with “Direct Manual Transmission”..


Now,, you can see that we are saying the same thing on one side..
But you're totally avoiding the most important aspect of the discussion.

So, do the little adjustments above, and then teach me what the law says..

BluntCrazeMan:



Good Morning.

You're really trying so hard to divert this discussion..
But I won't oblige you that.

You see your argument above,, I want you to remove anything that talks about “Results” from it, and replace it with “ACCREDITATION DATA”..

Remove “EC8As” from it, and replace it with “BVAS-Machines”..

Remove “EC8As for the results”, and replace it with “BVAS-Machines for the Accreditation Data”..


Remove “Electronic Transmission” from it, and replace it with “Direct Manual Transmission”..


Now,, you can see that we are saying the same thing on one side..
But you're totally avoiding the most important aspect of the discussion.

So, do the little adjustments above, and then teach me what the law says..

The law states Direct Transmission: this can be by any means direct. And based on recent interpretations by the supreme court, manual transmission is the best form of direct transmission. Manual transmission simply means computing results from form EC8As directly at collation centres. BVAS is not involved in direct manual transmission.

Simply logic. Let me break it down.

The law says transmission directly from polling unit.

Several officers in different locations at different times need to use this same single transmitted data sent directly from the polling unit, not its copy but the orihinal data. Whether in BVAS machine or on Paper.


If this is done manually and not electronically. It is impossible to collate results due to it will take weeks to reconcile results. Only way to achieve this is through an electronic record and transmission. For inec to say they did manual transmission means to say the results were not verified and reconciled.

In looking at the above, note that merely making a copy of a result paper manually sent from a polling unit violates the provision of the law that reconciliation must be done with data transmitted directly from the polling unit to avoid manipulation.

drlateef:




The law states Direct Transmission: this can be by any means direct. And based on recent interpretations by the supreme court, manual transmission is the best form of direct transmission. Manual transmission simply means computing results from form EC8As directly at collation centres. BVAS is not involved in direct manual transmission.

I repeat....
Let us resolve the issue of Direct Transmission of Accreditation Data first..


And for you to say that “BVAS is not involved in direct manual transmission”,, you're very wrong there..
The Law said something about “the number of accredited voters stated on the collated result” being correct and CONSISTENT with “the number of accredited voters recorded and transmitted directly from polling units”.. [Section-64(4)(a)]

This showed that after the Collation of the results (Which your whole attention is based on),, there is also The Collation of the Number of Accredited Voters,, which I am trying so hard to bring to your notice,, and which you're trying so hard to prove its inexistence..

(Yet you had agreed earlier on this very thread, that “only the BVAS” can be used to verify the NUMBER OF ACCREDITED VOTERS..)

Why are you turning round again to say that “BVAS is not involved in direct manual transmission.”??
How else can the “NUMBER OF ACCREDITED VOTERS” be verified in all the Collation Centers.??

Lalasticlala, Seun, Nlfpmod