senatordave1:



I agree with my learned brother Kekere-Ekun, JSC, that the failure to follow the Manual and Guidelines which were made in exercise of the powers conferred by the Electoral Act, cannot in itself render the election void. And this should not be understood to mean that the innovation of the Card Reader is in conflict with the relevant Sections of the Electoral Act.



Permit me, again, Your noble Lordships, to state, with emphasis that the Card Reader was introduced by INEC with good intentions. However, a distinction must always be drawn between the effect of a law made by the legislature (National Assembly: i.e. the Electoral Act: the Constitution, etc) and a rule of procedure (by whatever name called) by any other authority with a view to facilitating the smooth running or operation of a given institution. Breach of the former can be severer and fatal than breach in case of the latter. In this appeal, Section 138(2) decisively settles the



The above is from justice tanko Muhammed of the supreme court in wike vs dakuku

Wike and Dakuku with what electoral Act? I thought you made reference to the Osun gubernatorial case between Oyetola vs Adeleke judgement, which the judgement was based on the 2022 Electoral Act. Please you quoted wrong reference. Quote the one you referred. I am not a novice I follow cases in-situ. You can only deceive the gullible that doesn't read.

senatordave1:


let me make it clear that the provisions of the Electoral Act are superior to any letter or directive of the Independent National Electoral Commission. That superiority is clearly stated in Section 138(2) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) as follows:-

"An act or omission which may be contrary to an instruction or direction 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."



Thus, when the Independent National Electoral Commission directed that only card reader machine shall be used for accreditation and when it failed, its staff resorted to manual accreditation, that infraction did not for any reason amount to a ground for questioning the election of the appellant.


From justice nwali nguta

You're quoting belated law and old judgement. 2010 Electoral Act is null and void. Anything not in 2022 Electoral Act cannot be smuggle into any case. Try again.

IfnobeGod20:

You're quoting belated law and old judgement. 2010 Electoral Act is null and void. Anything not in 2022 Electoral Act cannot be smuggle into any case. Try again.

You lie.the 2022 electoral act has not changed any of these pronouncements.tje apex court will still stand by these.manual guidelines can never be used to nullify any polls

IfnobeGod20:

Wike and Dakuku with what electoral Act? I thought you made reference to the Osun gubernatorial case between Oyetola vs Adeleke judgement, which the judgement was based on the 2022 Electoral Act. Please you quoted wrong reference. Quote the one you referred. I am not a novice I follow cases in-situ. You can only deceive the gullible that doesn't read.

The 2022 electoral act has not elevated the manual guidelines above or equal to the electoral law my boy.

senatordave1:


You lie.the 2022 electoral act has not changed any of these pronouncements.tje apex court will still stand by these.manual guidelines can never be used to nullify any polls

This is why I said you've turned everything into a joke, since you don't even know that amended act supersedes the old one. Let me clear your doubt. Like for example, there were judgements that says the use of card reader is alien to our law and not using it cannot invalidate an election won, why because the old electoral law does not captured the use of card reader but can that be said in the new amended act. The card reader was eve stated clearly in the new Act. The new Act says the card reader or other device that may be deployed by the commission.

In Section 65 Nigeria Electoral Act 2022
Decision of returning officer on ballot paper

Here what it says verbatim below:

"(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":

'footnote'
Any question arising in any of the three points listed above. Please don't confuse yourself to any other thing.

The section continues as thus:

"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".


This last paragraph is even the cruise of everything. The commission even reserve the right to void an announced results within seven days wherein its detected that the declaration was done against the provisions of the law and guidelines and manual for the election.
'footnote'
Breached of:
1. Provisions of the law (both constitution and Electoral Act)
2. INEC guidelines
3. INEC manual so provided
The breached of any of these three can render the election null and void according to Electoral Act quoted above.

Pls I beg you don't reply me in vacuum, reply me on the point of law as I did above, either through the constitution or 2022 Electoral Act.

senatordave1:


The 2022 electoral act has not elevated the manual guidelines above or equal to the electoral law my boy.

Please where have you seen in my comment that I gave superiority to INEC guidelines above Electory Act. Go and check some of my comments, I have indeed corrected some people today, that any guidelines that are not consistent with the Electoral Act, the Electoral Act takes superiority and in the same way, if the section of the Electoral Act is not consistent with the Constitution, the constitution takes superiority. This is what I had pointed out to people just today. So, stay within our discourse and stop jumping aimlessly.

Point of correction, that your last line is derogatory and mannerless as an educated fellow. A man closing to 50 cannot be said to be a boy. And come to think of it, in a closed forum like this, courtesy demands that you show decorum as an enlightened person.

IfnobeGod20:

Please where have seen in my comment that I gave superiority to INEC guidelines above Electory Act. Go and check some of my comments, I have indeed corrected some people today, that any guidelines that are not consistent with the Electoral Act, the Electoral Act takes superiority and in the same way, if the section of the Electoral Act is not consistent with the Constitution, the constitution takes superiority. This is what I had pointes out to people just today. So, stay within our discourse and stop jumping aimlessly.

Point of correction, that your last line is derogatory and mannerless as an educated fellow. A man closing to 50 cannot be said to be a boy. And come to think of it, in a closed forum like this, courtesy demands that you show decorum as an enlightened person.

Sorry about the use of words,perhaps I stepped out of line.for a long time,I tried telling you that a supreme court judge said violation of the electoral act is fatal while that of the guidelines is not except it borders on the electoral act,you refused to believe.

IfnobeGod20:

This is why I said you've turned everything into a joke, since you don't even know that amended act supersedes the old one. Let me clear your doubt. Like for example, there were judgements that says the use of card reader is alien to our law and not using it cannot invalidate an election won, why because the old electoral law does not captured the use of card reader but can that be said in the new amended act. The card reader was eve stated clearly in the new Act. The new Act says the card reader or other device that may be deployed by the commission.

In Section 65 Nigeria Electoral Act 2022
Decision of returning officer on ballot paper

Here what it says verbatim below:

"(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":

'footnote'
Any question arising in any of the three points listed above. Please don't confuse yourself to any other thing.

The section continues as thus:

"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".


This last paragraph is even the cruise of everything. The commission even reserve the right to void an announced results within seven days wherein its detected that the declaration was done against the provisions of the law and guidelines and manual for the election.
'footnote'
Breached of:
1. Provisions of the law (both constitution and Electoral Act)
2. INEC guidelines
3. INEC manual so provided
The breached of any of these three can render the election null and void according to Electoral Act quoted above.

Pls I beg you don't reply me in vacuum, reply me on the point of law as I did above, either through the constitution or 2022 Electoral Act.

What I am saying clearly is that any law or rule in the guidelines not in the electoral act cannot invalidate any election.the electoral has clearly captured card readers,bvas and other devices for electronic accreditation so that is settled.the electoral act clearly allows inec to use any means of transmission they like while the guidelines says use only electronic.non use of electronic cannot be a ground to nullify polls

senatordave1:


You lie.the 2022 electoral act has not changed any of these pronouncements.tje apex court will still stand by these.manual guidelines can never be used to nullify any polls

They can't use 2010 act to judge 2022 act matters. It is like quoting the 1979 constitution to when there's a recent 1999 constitution that supercedes it.

Even if the same thing appears in the 1979 constitution, e nor mean say you go quote am abeg. We've not reached that level of retard yet.

IfnobeGod20:

Point of correction, that your last line is derogatory and mannerless as an educated fellow. A man closing to 50 cannot be said to be a boy. And come to think of it, in a closed forum like this, courtesy demands that you show decorum as an enlightened person.

👍👍👏👏

NothingDoMe:
They can't use 2010 act to judge 2022 act matters. It is like quoting the 1979 constitution to when there's a recent 1999 constitution that supercedes it.

Even if the same thing appears in the 1979 constitution, e nor mean say you go quote am abeg. We've not reached that level of retard yet.

The 2010 and 2022 acts are mainly the same except for bvas and types of primaries and powers of inec

senatordave1:


What I am saying clearly is that any law or rule in the guidelines not in the electoral act cannot invalidate any election.the electoral has clearly captured card readers,bvas and other devices for electronic accreditation so that is settled.the electoral act clearly allows inec to use any means of transmission they like while the guidelines says use only electronic.non use of electronic cannot be a ground to nullify polls

Truly from your first line and we are on the same page with that.
But you cannot transmit without using electronic and that was why the commission expended billions to launch the site called IREVs.

IfnobeGod20:

Truly from your first line and we are on the same page with that.
But you cannot transmit without using electronic and that was why the commission expended billions to launch the site called IREVs.

Oga,the amount that inec spent does not matter in law.what matters is what the law says and how you can prove that the law was breached substantially and how it affected the results

senatordave1:


Which is incomplete

Yet it shows PO won those states from.the incomplete stuff

senatordave1:


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

Do you even understand the arguement here or you just want to talk

njelrapheal:

Do you even understand the arguement here or you just want to talk

Ask yourself son

njelrapheal:

Yet it shows PO won those states from.the incomplete stuff

No,it shows obi only won rivers and benue with tinubu winning overall

Good afternoon everyone, here's a link to today's proceedings,19th June,2023


https://www.nairaland.com/7733866/peter-obi-vs-tinubu-19th#123896239

senatordave1:


No,it shows obi only won rivers and benue with tinubu winning overall

Alika. Was this was this not only results for these two states

senatordave1:


Ask yourself son

I see.i will pass

ogunijebu18:

Pastors are not prophets

Yoruba has all. Both false pastors and false prophets