stocktaker:
There are some things going on in Court IamV is withholding here he only type what he want you to know

It seems you are preview to those things happening that isn't depicted here, why don't you add them or create another thread to give a complete overview of happenings?

I won't be surprised you are amongst those groups that opposed application for live telecast of proceedings. If it was televised live no one will be here.

kollinz1234:
Do your Yoruba pastors not act like false prophets

Pastors are not prophets

sonnie10:

Why was it brought during the presidential elections?
Why was Yakubu caught on camera saying that he will use it?
Why did they upload some documents on it ?
Why did INEC produce and issued those documents as CTC of the presidential results?
Is that why INEC have objected to those evidence?

It's unfortunate but the polls stand

MyPoint:


This one will not be same as usual.

It will

MyPoint:


Yet INEC chairman is running away from being served the subpoena?

It's normal to evade service

Kukutenla:

Oga even a toddler knows what belongs to him and what doesn't. This your question is silly with all due respect. You're making it seem like it was inec that made a mistake while it was APC that rigged then got INEC to stamp the rigging by declaring the rigged results.

The arbiter should rely on results as transmitted from polling units and not from thin air. That's what the rule says. Anything outside of that is fraudulent

Do you have proof of APC rigging?
The court wants to hear from you.

Fraud and stealing are not the same thing, I want you to be clear on that.

senatordave1:


It's unfortunate but the polls stand

In essence you are admitting that it has been a deliberate effort aimed at rigging and manipulation?

sonnie10:

In essence you are admitting that it has been a deliberate effort aimed at rigging and manipulation?

I am saying that there irregularities was not widespread hence no concrete evidence

senatordave1:


It's normal to evade service

You evade service.?You would be served at your last know address and on a local newspaper

sonnie10:

You evade service.?You would be served at your last know address and on a local newspaper

It would be termed improper service except you apply for substituted service

senatordave1:


It would be termed improper service except you apply for substituted service

No . It is permissible to serve to an address with out applying for substitute service.

sonnie10:

No . It is permissible to serve to an address with out applying for substitute service.

It is not sir.it will be termed as improper service.see odey vs pdp and alaga 2021 supra..

Let me also tell you that even if obi succeed in proving that results were not transmitted,obi will still have to show how it affected the overall outcome

BabaRamota1980:


Do you have proof of APC rigging?
The court wants to hear from you.

Fraud and stealing are not the same thing, I want you to be clear on that.

The evidence is in Rivers and Benue

Yeah. I guess Jonathan is right after all that stealing is no longer corruption.
APC and confusion

senatordave1:


It is not sir.it will be termed as improper service.see odey vs pdp and alaga 2021 supra..

Let me also tell you that even if obi succeed in proving that results were not transmitted,obi will still have to show how it affected the overall outcome

No. Improper service is when you do not have evidence to show that you actually delivered to the address.
If you have an adolescent child in school and he comes home and say to you, “Dad look, I came first in my class.” He then proceeds to show you a blurred sheet of paper.
What would you do?

sonnie10:

No. Improper service is when you do not have evidence to show that you actually delivered to the address.
If you have an adolescent child in school and he comes home and say to you, “Dad look, I came first in my class.” He then proceeds to show you a blurred sheet of paper.
What would you do?

I have backed up my assertions with a case law.where is yours? Even if it is to the last known address,someone who knows or works for you must collect it.

keymatt:
With ocean of evidences supplied by Peter Obi thus far against Mamoot and EyeNeck, only a hardened Criminal Judge will acquit EyeNeck.






Hurricane Peter Obi is coming 😎

It's not about bringing perceived "... ocean of evidences..." alone. It's about "proving beyond reasonable doubts". Think.

OsinAmaka:


And who told you that he didn't win any of these?

Inec the umpire said so, and if you have any contrary opinion, bring your own version of the results

senatordave1:


It's unfortunate but the polls stand

Fortunately, you are not decide that

chidiokay:



Can you please highlight and screen much that part, i can't see it old age don dey worry me

The nairaland site is not allowing me to attach images, read section 64 subsection 4, 5 and 6 of the 2022 electoral act. Take note of the phrase "transmitted directly from the polling unit".

ubaobi:

The nairaland site is not allowing me to attach images, read section 64 subsection 4, 5 and 6 of the 2022 electoral act. Take note of the phrase "transmitted directly from the polling unit".

No problem, i hope you know section 64 sub 4, 5, 6 is dependant on section 47 sub 2.

Section 47 subsection 2 states;

(2) To vote, the presiding officer shall use a smart card reader or any other technological device that may be prescribed by the Commission, for the accreditation of voters, to verify, confirm or authenticate the particulars of the intending voter in the manner prescribed by the Commission

Section 64 sub 4 stipulated the ideal process collation & announcement of results .. sub (a) is what clears it all for me

(4) A collation officer or returning officerat 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 ;

According to the highlighted sub (a) it is clear the BVAS is what is being referred to & REQUIRED, only BVAS was used at the polling units for accreditation, and use to transmit directly from the polling unit,

therefore upon discrepancies or dispute the returning officier will seek verification using the BVAS as stated in section 47sub(2)

sub(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—
Section 64 sub (6) reaffirms the BVAS as the decider & path to correctness.

I hope you are open minded enought to admit at no point was IREV mentioned or referred to ; so what exactly is Peter & his lawyers doing in court shouting IREV section 64 is the ALPHA & OMEGA of these case

chidiokay:




No problem, i hope you know section 64 sub 4, 5, 6 is dependant on section 47 sub 2.

Section 47 subsection 2 states;

(2) To vote, the presiding officer shall use a smart card reader or any other technological device that may be prescribed by the Commission, for the accreditation of voters, to verify, confirm or authenticate the particulars of the intending voter in the manner prescribed by the Commission

Section 64 sub 4 stipulated the ideal process collation & announcement of results .. sub (a) is what clears it all for me

(4) A collation officer or returning officerat 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 ;

According to the highlighted sub (a) it is clear the BVAS is what is being referred to & REQUIRED, only BVAS was used at the polling units for accreditation, and use to transmit directly from the polling unit,

therefore upon discrepancies or dispute the returning officier will seek verification using the BVAS as stated in section 47sub(2)

sub(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—
Section 64 sub (6) reaffirms the BVAS as the decider & path to correctness.

I hope you are open minded enought to admit at no point was IREV mentioned or referred to ; so what exactly is Peter & his lawyers doing in court shouting IREV section 64 is the ALPHA & OMEGA of these case

I understand your logic and it makes perfect sense to me since BVAS is the primary source of accreditation data and form EC8A the primary source of election results. But the intention behind the law was to create a MAKER-CHECKER control mechanism to ensure that the results are not tampered with after conclusion of activities at the polling unit. The only way to guarantee that is to transmit directly from the polling unit. If LP has proof that the information on the physical form EC8A differs from what was uploaded on IREV then they have a solid case. Their case will only be jinxed if what they have on the physical copy corresponds with what is on IREV and their only basis of argument is that the results were not uploaded directly cos like u said, the collation officer can as well claim that he confirmed from BVAS since IREV was not mentioned in the electoral act.

senatordave1:


His testimony is dead

Are you the judge to determine his testimony

senatordave1:


At first,he said it is a collation system

Collation systrm.and collation centre are two different things

stocktaker:
There are some things going on in Court IamV is withholding here he only type what he want you to know

come ans say ur own na.

tinsel:

By that singular admission that whatever is uploaded in IREV cannot affect results to be announced by INEC and IREV is not the collection and tabulation centre. The drama is ended and is now thrashed.
Obidients will now migrate to the next drama

funny . What about the part that says collation officers should make ref to irev where there are descrepancies

senatordave1:


He said he's not a statistician which is a problem.
He agreed that 18000 blurred copies on irev doesn't mean others are blurred which is crucial.
They will likely discountenanced his facts

thr fact that others are not blurred does not mean they are original or correct or even availaible

njelrapheal:
thr fact that others are not blurred does not mean they are original or correct or even availaible

The law says when there's a dispute in a copy,use the other copies.

ubaobi:

I understand your logic and it makes perfect sense to me since BVAS is the primary source of accreditation data and form EC8A the primary source of election results. But the intention behind the law was to create a MAKER-CHECKER control mechanism to ensure that the results are not tampered with after conclusion of activities at the polling unit. The only way to guarantee that is to transmit directly from the polling unit.[b] If LP has proof that the information on the physical form EC8A differs from what was uploaded on IREV then they have a solid case. [/b]Their case will only be jinxed if what they have on the physical copy corresponds with what is on IREV and their only basis of argument is that the results were not uploaded directly cos like u said, the collation officer can as well claim that he confirmed from BVAS since IREV was not mentioned in the electoral act.

Despite taking my time to highlight the whole section 64 out, where you see IREV or should we just argue outside the laws

Electoral act clearly spells out how discrepancies & dispute will be resolved emphasis to Section 64 sub 6 [a-d] .. the only materials recognised for resolve are;
i. ECa8 paper
ii. BVas machine.

BUT i have also had course to reason along your line;
Maybe if Peter Obi had presented witnesses that have recorded evidences of the ECa8 results announced at poll units in real time and those evidences differs from what was uploaded on IREV that would have "instated" IREV onboard then whatever Obi's lawyers are doing can make sense, presently they are trying to force IREV recognition on the court i like the way the judges are gearing them on

But Unfortunately, the law is clear and the judges are bound to adjudicate from the angle of section 47 (2) .. las las we go the Adeleke & Oyetola path until section 47 (2) is amended to
be subservient to IREV.

senatordave1:


He established probable doubt on his work when he displayed poor knowledge of irev.if a copy of a document is illegible,you simply check the original or another copy except there is only one copy.dont forget that the blurring might be from bvas itself

His data is bases on uploads to irev.

njelrapheal:

His data is bases on uploads to irev.

Which is incomplete

senatordave1:

He has abandoned that prayer

Dey play. A good general doesn't disclose his strategies. Anyway, wait and see

StainlessCup:


Dey play. A good general doesn't disclose his strategies. Anyway, wait and see

He's a bad general.he has only 5 days and can't do anything him.again,in court you must lay bare everything for the court