DesChyko:


Is it insignificant really?

According to INEC, the number of voters per PU is 500. 500 by 18000 gives a potential 9,000,000
voter's. The smallest margin of winning between the top 3 in the flawed elections was 800,000, the largest margin of win was less than 2,000,000 and over four times less than the potential voters unaccounted for on iRev. Then, there is the issue of whose stronghold was blurred out?

You'd agree with me that your passmark did not come from a place of common sense.

ExudeLoveToAll:



18K is insignificant when it can have a change in the results? 18k insignificant, nothing one won't read on this forum.

HNICEARTH:


18k PUs results insignificant
That's more than 10% of the total PUs

What's the difference in number of votes btw the 1st, 2nd and 3rd in that election?

Ode go learn maths first before you open mouth

garfield1:


Read osun judgment again by justice agim.it is oyetola vs adeleke supra 2023 per jsc agim.

garfield1:


Yes to an extent.it is useful in the absence of manual results

Spy360:
Both sentences contradict each other. If you say yes, then the second sentence is inconsequential.

If I take yes, then the new electoral act was violated. Based on the screenshot below.

If I go with the second sentence, then it means that a blurred IREV results nullifies the hardcopy.

Spy360:

Why don't you tell me what it says?

What I see there is that BVAS is the primary source of election data.

Penguin2:
At the resumed hearing of the Petition of the Labour Party and Peter Obi against INEC, Tinubu, Shettima and APC, INEC was finally able to open their defence as their witness did not have “domestic issues” today.

INEC witness today was the same Deputy Director of ICT at INEC, Lawrence Bayode, who testified for INEC in PDP’s case.

After adopting his witness statement, it was time for cross examinations by parties.

When it the turn of the Labour Party, cross examination was handled by PIN Ikwueto SAN.

First, under cross examination, PIN Ikwueto asked the witness why INEC went ahead to deploy the IREV for the elections if it had “vulnerabilities” (recall the many claims of threats of hackers and all by INEC and government agencies).

To this the witness replied that the IREV “had no vulnerability.”

Furthermore into the cross examination, Mr Ikwueto handed an INEC certified IREV result sheet and asked, “what is the score of APC in this result sheet?”

INEC Witness: ”I don’t know, the results are blurry.”

And that was how INEC admitted in court that its document is blurry.

Now, the question is where did it get the numbers to announce the winner it announced?

Remember: ”The aim is not to trust the judiciary, the aim is to overwhelm them with evidence”.

seunmsg:


IREV results are downloaded from IREV. IREV results were not used for collation so it’s of no effect even if it is blurry. Below is the relevant testimony of the witness that the OP will not post here.



And this



Final

seunmsg:


INEC officials. And yes, there are lots of reasons for blurry images. If 18k snapped results are blurry out of 176k, then that’s an insignificant number. It’s a passmark for INEC and IREV.

garfield1:


Read the full sttaement of justice agim about third hand evidence

ImperialYoruba:


Irev result showed to him are blurry. Result used to declare winner is EC8 and BVAS, not irev.

Infact, you can take irev offline and integrity of result of the election is still intact.

The only way you can change the integrity is to manipulate EC8 and BVAS.

Petition should have focused on the integrity of the BVAS and EC8, not on irev.

garfield1:


You are quoting from a mere guideline which is inferior.the electoral act has given inec the power to transmit anyhow.the supreme court has made server evidence secondary.thats that.apply commonsense and stop this nonsense

HNICEARTH:


18k PUs results insignificant
That's more than 10% of the total PUs

What's the difference in number of votes btw the 1st, 2nd and 3rd in that election?

Ode go learn maths first before you open mouth

seunmsg:


IREV results are downloaded from IREV. IREV results were not used for collation so it’s of no effect even if it is blurry. Below is the relevant testimony of the witness that the OP will not post here.



And this



Final

garfield1:


You are quoting from a mere guideline which is inferior.the electoral act has given inec the power to transmit anyhow.the supreme court has made server evidence secondary.thats that.apply commonsense and stop this nonsense

Spy360:

The purpose of IREV is the ensure the transparency of the process according to the INEC guideline. See the pix below.

If IREV is not available then the process is not transparent and therefore cannot stand.

ganisucks:


Obi and co are in US getting briefings on when he becomes president. Una go see chimchom.

Spy360:

The purpose of IREV is the ensure the transparency of the process according to the INEC guideline. See the pix below.

If IREV is not available then the process is not transparent and therefore cannot stand.

seunmsg:


They are blurry only on IREV. The real form EC8A results for the 18k units are not blurry. They are very clear and they were used in collating the results. Results were not collated on IREV.

Nakedtruths:

Are you aware that INEC were asked to produce the form ec8 of those 18000 pu and they could not?

chidiokay:




Oga !! what that clause is addressing is a situation where there is discrepancies between the polling unit and at the ward centre collation unit,
the presiding officier from the polling unit and collation officier will review the discrepancies with electronic result, i.e check what was snapped by the Bvas and rectify AT WARD LEVEL. as primary source what is on the BVAS is what will definitely be seen on IREV

We have four coalition stage, polling units 2 ward 2 local govt 2 state then 2 National




Section 64 subservient to section 47 (2) are the only Guide of the collation of results

ImperialYoruba:


False information.

INEC is willing to release data but the service must be paid for. LP has not paid.

Nakedtruths:

Are you aware that INEC were asked to produce the form ec8 of those 18000 pu and they could not?

Spy360:

You have admitted that the INEC guidelines were not followed.

Does the electoral act empower INEC to develop a collation system? Yes.

INEC's failure to follow its own guidelines is a violation of the electoral act itself.

A school says you must obey your teacher.
Teacher gives instructions. A student then says I will disobey my teacher, it does not mean I disobey the school. The teacher is inferior to the school. Makes no sense.

Electoral act says INEC has the power to create her own guidelines which must be obeyed. The guidelines were not obeyed as you agree, but you turn back to say it is inferior to the electoral act. I can't even make sense out of it.

Nakedtruths:

May be you should ask for clarification from your end. Inec said they don't have, so couldn't provide it as at when it was needed

seunmsg:


I’m not aware. Can you post a credible link to support your claim?