SMARTMOTORS:
If buying of by each of the Sons both biological and adopted is a requirement that MUST be met before the any of them can be able to get his share, then so it shall be. The must important thing is meeting the requirements by the Law or the Will.

No there are 5 sons
At least Two cows must be bought by each of Two
of his four biological sons AND his one adopted son.
My question is does this mean his adopted son must buy one of the two cows?
Or he won't be buried or can it be any of the 5 sons

Gajagojo:

Read section 62(1,2,3)
Of the electoral Act.
It is on line in PDF format

I have no time to comment on you.
Not interested

Focus on the issues

Oga get lost!
I have been patient with you but its obvious that you have been discovered for who you really are!
As for the issues which you are trying so hard to not comprehend,the electoral laws and by extension is explicit!
The PU officer scans the result and uploads it to the INEC server which is stored in a database and viewed through the IREV portal!
UPLOAD: Transfer or transmission of data or information from one point to another!
Transmission: Movement of information or data from one point to another!

Gajagojo:

Transmission to the INEC Server it is distinct from IREV
Also manual transport of signed paper results

IREV is a portal where results stored in the server are viewed!
Electronic Transmission of results from the polling Unit to the INEC server which is viewed by anyone!
No manual transmission from the PU!

bentenny:

Oga get lost!
I have been patient with you but its obvious that you have been discovered for who you really are!
As for the issues which you are trying so hard to not comprehend,the electoral laws and by extension is explicit!
The PU officer scans the result and uploads it to the INEC server which is stored in a database and viewed through the IREV portal!
UPLOAD: Transfer or transmission of data or information from one point to another!
Transmission: Movement of information or data from one point to another!

It is not surprising that is what Obidients are known for
No manners,emotional and very rude.

The server is not viewed through IREV.
That is wrong.
The results on IReV are uploaded manually

and that is why it continued many days after the election .

The server is the transmission destination recognised by law

NOT IREV

bentenny:

IREV is a portal where results stored in the server are viewed!
Electronic Transmission of results from the polling Unit to the INEC server which is viewed by anyone!
No manual transmission from the PU!

Manual transmission is allowed by law and it happened
Result collation from polling unit to ward to LGA to state
I suggest you read section 62 of the electoral Act

Gajagojo:





The server is not viewed through IREV.
That is wrong.
The results on IReV are uploaded manually

and that is why it continued many days after the election .

The server is the transmission destination recognised by law

NOT IREV

Not true!
The results are uploaded electronically to the server where it is stored in a database!
The viewer goes to the portal and accesses the uploaded result!
When you upload a picture or document online using an app,it goes to the server and viewed by you try to access it!
There is no ambiguity!

It is not surprising that is what Obidients are known for
No manners,emotional and very rude.

Trash!
Stick to the issues you CORNfused folk!

Gajagojo:

Manual transmission is allowed by law and it happened
Result collation from polling unit to ward to LGA to state
I suggest you read section 62 of the electoral Act

Manual transmission occurs at the collation centre not the polling unit!
The guidelines and regulations of INEC are explicit on that!
The guidelines and regulation of INEC was for clarity on the mode of transmission!
E-transmission was the choice!
I also suggest you read the guidelines and regulations of INEC which is as mandatory and powerful as the electoral laws!

bentenny:

Manual transmission occurs at the collation centre not the polling unit!
The guidelines and regulations of INEC are explicit on that!
The guidelines and regulation of INEC was for clarity on the mode of transmission!
E-transmission was the choice!
I also suggest you read the guidelines and regulations of INEC which is as mandatory and powerful as the electoral laws!

We are done .
I think I have tried my best to be respectful. That we disagree does not mean we should disrespect each other there is always the possibility of persuasion where there is respect.
I don't think any of us will profit from further discussion

Peace

Gajagojo:

We are done .
I think I have tried my best to be respectful. That we disagree does not mean we should disrespect each other there is always the possibility of persuasion where there is respect.
I don't think any of us will profit from further discussion

Peace

Oga you have been exposed for who you are...stop trying to be evasive or defensive!
You are not asking questions for clarity but rather to impose your opinion which is half-baked and synonymous with a personality that is partisan!
Next time come out openly that you are politically affiliated with a certain candidate from a ruling party and engage me!

bentenny:

Oga you have been exposed for who you are...stop trying to be evasive or defensive!
You are not asking questions for clarity but rather to impose your opinion which is half-baked and synonymous with a personality that is partisan!
Next time come out openly that you are politically affiliated with a certain candidate from a ruling party and engage me!

We Are still done

If you are looking for a partner for your daily quarrel
I am not he
You feel good when involved in confrontation.and quarrel
Not interested
Goodbye

Gajagojo:


We Are still done

If you are looking for a partner for your daily quarrel
I am not he
You feel good when involved in confrontation.and quarrel
Not interested
Goodbye

How many times will you say we are done?
Guy get off my mentions and scamp!
Go and find who you want to quarrel or confront!

bentenny:

How many times will you say we are done?
Guy get off my mentions and scamp!
Go and find who you want to quarrel or confront!

As many times as I like

We are done
You have nothing meaningful to say

The "ATLEAST" and the "AND" in that statement should automatically tell you that the Will has already made room for the adopted son to make his own provision, he has to, because according to the statement two out of the 4 is required to buy one cow each AND also one cow from the Adopted. The "ATLEAST" is tellingb you that the buying of cow is not limited to only the 2 Sons and the Cows to be bought is not only limited to two....that is why he said Atleast one cow each from the boys AND one also from the adopted.... #YOU MUST BE CONSCIENTISED BY FORCED!!

Gajagojo:


No there are 5 sons
At least Two cows must be bought by each of Two
of his four biological sons AND his one adopted son.
My question is does this mean his adopted son must buy one of the two cows?
Or he won't be buried or can it be any of the 5 sons

SMARTMOTORS:
The "ATLEAST" and the "AND" in that statement should automatically tell you that the Will has already made room for the adopted son to make his own provision, he has to, because according to the statement two out of the 4 is required to buy one cow each AND also one cow from the Adopted. The "ATLEAST" is tellingb you that the buying of cow is not limited to only the 2 Sons and the Cows to be bought is not only limited to two....that is why he said Atleast one cow each from the boys AND one also from the adopted.... #YOU MUST BE CONSCIENTISED BY FORCED!!

can you answer the question ?
Two cows must be bought
minimum
If only two are bought
A.can they be bought by any of the five sons or
B. one of them must be bought by the adopted son

Simple question
A or B

Gajagojo:
As many times as I like

We are done
You have nothing meaningful to say

And you have anything meaningful to say? You are obviously a certified and glorified clown!
If you can't even comprehend what transmission means how will you understand your own statement 'we are done' after regurgitating it like a broken record?
No Please stay and keep CORNstituting a nuisance to your benighted self!

bentenny:


And you have anything meaningful to say? You are obviously a certified and glorified clown!
If you can't even comprehend what transmission means how will you understand your own statement 'we are done' after regurgitating it like a broken record?
No Please stay and keep CORNstituting a nuisance to your benighted self!

We are done

Gajagojo:

We are done

Smh..clown

bentenny:

Smh..clown

. Done

bentenny:

How can I make you understand something as simplified as this?
Before LP went to court last year to mandate or compel INEC to use e-transmission, INEC had not come out with their guidelines and regulations!

The judge rightly ruled that the mode of transmission rest squarely on INEC in accordance with the electoral laws as amended!

INEC went a step further to present their extended authority or rights given to them by the act which is called 'guidelines and regulations' which contained the mode of transmission they will adopt on election day from the POLLING UNITS!

Hence the guidelines and regulations of INEC is as mandatory as the electoral acts itself because their freedom to choose is backed by law!

However,no where in the guidelines and regulations did INEC state that where they meet a stumbling block in e-transmission, they will adopt an alternative which is manual!
If there is please point it out for me!

Your claim that 'guidelines and regulations' is not a binding document of INEC is preposterous and illogical!
The guidelines and regulations are an extension of the electoral acts which is primarily to decide the mode of transmission and the process to achieve such transmission as long as its not in any way conflicting with the main electoral laws which includes transmission of results from the PU!

The guidelines and regulations hold as much authority as the electoral laws!
At your leisure,you can find out the meaning of guidelines and regulations!

Just because the law gives INEC the choice to make in the mode of transmission doesn't mean they can alter it at will or at their convenience!
That will imply that one is disobeying their own laws!
My apologises but your instances are off tangent!

You are the one who has refused to be open minded and continue to see INEC's guideline as an extension of the constitution.

The position of the ACT is that INEC should transmit result.

The interpretation of the court is that INEC is free to decide how it transmits.

INEC deciding to release a guideline is not a MUST as far as the law is concerned...Nowhere in the ACT nor the court interpretation is it stated that they must release a guideline and stick to it, it is simply what INEC did to ease its operations and make election smooth...and for a fact if they decide to change the guideline 10 times before election date, they dont need to revert to the court or seek amendment to the ACT, it is still within their right as long as the clause "transmit results from polling center to collation center" still happens.

If you followed the discussion around the electoral ACT, the defense for not mandating mode of transmission was clear. The lawmakers cited network coverage at the time. Also mentioned the geography of Nigeria, where some polling units in the south south ae several minutes on water, with no network and some places up north are only accessible via donkeys as vehicles probably get there only once weekly. INEC clearly gave insight into her logistics and operations and justified the need to be in control of how it transmits and nt to have that as a constitutional requirement to use a defined mode.

Now moving further from the position of the LAW (which is what the court will stick to), to INEC's own communicated procedure as at election day. It will still tell you that it clearly transmitted results from most polling units to its server electronically and it was based on the collated result that the winner was declared. What it didnt do is to make the transmitted result visible to the public via IREV portal

If in your house you have a documented law that says your son must get to school by 8 am every school day .

And a further court judgement stating clearly that your son is at liberty to decide how he gets to sch, that the key thing is to get there by 8.

Then your son decided to share his daily routine(guideline) with you stating that he will use bus and suddenly decided to trek to sch while still making 8 am. If you go back to the court to discuss mode of getting to school, the court will still remind you that it has clearly told you that the boy is at liberty to decide how it get to school.

I hope this helps you get it

tunjilana:



You are the one who has refused to be open minded and continue to see INEC's guideline as an extension of the constitution.

The position of the ACT is that INEC should transmit result.

The interpretation of the court is that INEC is free to decide how it transmits.

INEC deciding to release a guideline is not a MUST as far as the law is concerned...Nowhere in the ACT nor the court interpretation is it stated that they must release a guideline and stick to it, it is simply what INEC did to ease its operations and make election smooth...and for a fact if they decide to change the guideline 10 times before election date, they dont need to revert to the court or seek amendment to the ACT, it is still within their right as long as the clause "transmit results from polling center to collation center" still happens.

If in your house you have a documented law that says your son must get to school by 8 am every school day .

And a further court judgement stating clearly that your son is at liberty to decide how he gets to sch, that the key thing is to get there by 8.

Then your son decided to share his daily routine(guideline) with you stating that he will use bus and suddenly decided to trek to sch while still making 8 am. If you go back to the court to discuss mode of getting to school, the court will still remind you that it has clearly told you that the boy is at liberty to decide how it get to school.

I hope this helps you get it

When it comes to the law,there is nothing like being open-minded!
The law is the law!
INEC was given the power to choose the mode of transmission which they did!
The guidelines and regulations of INEC is a written document to authenticate their choice of the mode of transmission they have adopted!
INEC cannot go against their own laws during the elections and decide to adopt another approach of transmission!
That will be tantamount to disobeying their own laws!
Since you like instances,let me give you mine
In soccer,a law says if a ball hits the hand of a player in their 18 yard whether intentionally or not,is a penalty!
The law doesn't want to know the intention of the player but the law is the law no matter how harsh it might seem!

We can have this back and forth ad infinitum but the law is the law no matter its flaws and we must abide by it for the purpose of fairness and credibility!

And just to add this,once the electoral act has backed INEC to choose its mode of transmission, it has also bestowed on the institution the express power to make an extended law(guidelines and regulations) to give credence,authority and a seal of compliance to that choice!

I also hope this helps too!

yusfatedeeprof:

Have you heard of "Force Majeure"
There are some occurrences or circumstances that will make any institution to go against their guidelines even FIFA you quoted has done it many times. That's why there are always exemptions.

So Yes they do have the right, and they already gave an excuse that they experienced/suffered a "technical glitch" and immediately it was sorted they started uploading, there's nothing else to it at this point.

Mr. Man, I am not a baby, there had never time FIFA changes rule at the middle of the game. The worse is to abandon the game and fix another for replay. It's abnormal, inconsistent and illegal for rule to be bend for no reason at the middle of any game.
I will be glad if you can show me any match played that the rule was bent and the game continues.
No reasonable country would bend its rule concerning election that requires free, fair, credibility and transparency. Changing any bit of the rule at the middle or when election has began rendered the process null and void in any election.
I have seen many matches replayed, some cancelled and points deducted because of match infringement to the rules. Sometimes sanctions are melted out. Juventus suffered 15 points deduction because of fielding ineligible player, even after the match had been played and they won. You can see below various clubs that have suffered penalties for varying infringements.

bentenny:

When it comes to the law,there is nothing like being open-minded!
The law is the law!
INEC was given the power to choose the mode of transmission which they did!
The guidelines and regulations of INEC is a written document to authenticate their choice of the mode of transmission they have adopted!
INEC cannot go against their own laws during the elections and decide to adopt another approach of transmission!
That will be tantamount to disobeying their own laws!
Since you like instances,let me give you mine
In soccer,a law says if a ball hits the hand of a player in their 18 yard whether intentionally or not,is a penalty!
The law doesn't want to know the intention of the player but the law is the law no matter how harsh it might seem!

We can have this back and forth ad infinitum but the law is the law no matter its flaws and we must abide by it for the purpose of fairness and credibility!

And just to add this,once the electoral act has backed INEC to choose its mode of transmission, it has also bestowed on the institution the express power to make an extended law(guidelines and regulations) to give credence,authority and a seal of compliance to that choice!

I also hope this helps too!

Open Minded means, focus on the Law.

Even your example further justifies my point.... As a judge, the only thing that matters are
1- Did the ball hit the player's hand in Box-18 - Yes
2- Did Fifa law say a penalty must be awarded - Yes

which is similar to saying
1- Was election result transmitted - Yes
2- Did the Electoral Act (A constitutional doc) say that result must be transmitted and INEC is at liberty to decide how it is transmitted - Yes
3- Does the law care about how it is transmitted - No
4- Does the law give INEC to decide how it is transmitted without any recourse to any court - Yes
5- Is INEC at liberty to choose it's own guidelines about how it transmits - Yes
6- What is the penalty for INEC changing it's own rules and guidelines regarding transmission - probably a document within INEC's manual stating penalties for staff that made that happen e.g. Head of IT, IF THERE IS NO VALID FORCE MAJEURE REASON (that is if such policy exists) but it has nothing to do with the conditions upon which an election result is termed illegal, as the law clearly says it should transmit(which it did) and decide how it does that(which it also did).

tunjilana:


Open Minded means, focus on the Law.

Even your example further justifies my point.... As a judge, the only thing that matters are
1- Did the ball hit the player's hand in Box-18 - Yes
2- Did Fifa law say a penalty must be awarded - Yes

which is similar to saying
1- Was election result transmitted - Yes
2- Did the Electoral Act (A constitutional doc) say that result must be transmitted and INEC is at liberty to decide how it is transmitted - Yes
3- Does the law care about how it is transmitted - No
4- Does the law give INEC to decide how it is transmitted without any recourse to any court - Yes
5- Is INEC at liberty to choose it's own guidelines about how it transmits - Yes
6- What is the penalty for INEC changing it's own rules and guidelines regarding transmission - probably a document within INEC's manual stating penalties for staff that made that happen e.g. Head of IT, IF THERE IS NO VALID FORCE MAJEURE REASON (that is if such policy exists) but it has nothing to do with the conditions upon which an election result is termed illegal, as the law clearly says it should transmit(which it did) and decide how it does that(which it also did).

!, The election was transmitted through which mode?
Electronically from the PU? No
2. Did the electoral law give INEC powers to decide which mode of transmission to adopt? Yes
Did INEC make extended laws to validate their choice of the mode of Transmission? YES
Did INEC renege and disobey their own extended powers guidelines and regulations during election by adopting another mode other than the one in the laws? YES
3. Does the law give INEC the powers to choose the mode of transmission? YES
IF after they have adopted a choice with a written document,do they now have the powers to flaunt or disobey such laws? NO
4.Refer to number 1,2 and 3
5.Refer to 2
6.The court will decide that which will likely lead to an annulment of the election!

You are MUMU,I know you reasoned with your anus.Karma will soon catch up with you,be saying what you don't know............

John4B:


Goat! I love ur tears.

The instructions to be carried pit all depends on how the statement was made, the grammar and words used...if it sates that only two Cows MUST be bought by his 4 biological Sons AND his one Adopted it automatically implies that the adopted Son Must Contribute to the buying of the Cows, not necessarily buying one full cow alone, but must make contribution to the buying of the two Cows, which is why he was included.


...If the statement had said only two Cows MUST be bought by two of the 4 biological Sons OR the adopted Son then I would be that any one wether the Biological or Adopted can make the purchase.

Gajagojo:
can you answer the question ?
Two cows must be bought
minimum
If only two are bought
A.can they be bought by any of the five sons or
B. one of them must be bought by the adopted son

Simple question
A or B

SMARTMOTORS:
The instructions to be carried pit all depends on how the statement was made, the grammar and words used...if it sates that only two Cows MUST be bought by his 4 biological Sons AND his one Adopted it automatically implies that the adopted Son Must Contribute to the buying of the Cows, not necessarily buying one full cow alone, but must make contribution to the buying of the two Cows, which is why he was included.


...If the statement had said only two Cows MUST be bought by two of the 4 biological Sons OR the adopted Son then I would be that any one wether the Biological or Adopted can make the purchase.

A or B?
There is no provision for contribution
Each buyer must buy cow by himself
Minimum of two cows no maximum

You are just waffling
Answer the the question or close the subject

Gajagojo:

A or B?
There is no provision for contribution
Each buyer must buy cow by himself
Minimum of two cows no maximum

You are just waffling
Answer the the question or close the subject

I cannot answer a question that is wrongly asked. How can you asked 3 parties to buy one cow each and still say it has to be only two Cows... That's totally flawed! And not applicable.

SMARTMOTORS:
I cannot answer a question that is wrongly asked. How can you asked 3 parties to buy one cow each and still say it has to be only two Cows... That's totally flawed! And not applicable.

The phraseology is the same as the previous question for sharing the property
So you are dodging
I will ask again
Before the man is buried
at least two of his four biological sons and one adopted son must buy at least one cow each and each cow must be bought individually without contribution there is no limit to the number of cows so everyone can buy a cow or ten cows but at least 2 sons must buy cows

So before he is buried two cows must be bough from
Two of his four biological sons AND One adopted son

The question is does this mean one of the cows must be bought by the adopted son
Yes or no

NO

Gajagojo:


The phraseology is the same as the previous question for sharing the property
So you are dodging
I will ask again
Before the man is buried
at least two of his four biological sons and one adopted son must buy at least one cow each and each cow must be bought individually without contribution there is no limit to the number of cows so everyone can buy a cow or ten cows but at least 2 sons must buy cows

So before he is buried two cows must be bough from
Two of his four biological sons AND One adopted son

The question is does this mean one of the cows must be bought by the adopted son
Yes or no

SMARTMOTORS:
NO

And that is the same answer for whether 25% in Abuja is mandatory
The same logic
The same question can be asked another way
Before I am buried
At least two of my four biological children and one adopted son must be present at the burial.

Does this mean he should not be buried if the adopted son is not present?