₦airaland Forum

Please,, I would need all our National Assembly Members to see these suggestions..
I would like us to take these suggestions to the very doorsteps of our National Assembly Members.

SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS TO THE ELECTORAL-ACT-2022..
**(Starting from the first page to the very last page)

(AND INCLUDING SOME SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS TO THE PROCEDURES FOR THE ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION, AND COLLATION, AND REVIEW OF THE ELECTRONICALLY COLLATED RESULTS)


PART-I: (Establishment)
Section-3(4):
The Electoral-Act (EA) should specify the MEANS and the MEDIUM through which the “rules” which are “set out by the Commission” for the disbursement of the Commission’s Funds are established.

(Even though the Commission has the discretion to make any choices, the Act shall direct It on how to make those choices)

Section-4(2):
The part that read “...Expressly Authorised...”,, the Act should answer the question:
Who (and Who - if they are more than one entity) shall give the Express Authorisation??

The Act is supposed to specifically name the person (or persons) who shall be giving the express authorisation for such special payments.

Section-5:
The Act should give definite timelines, and the time of the year (maximum) within which the commission had finished auditing her yearly accounts.
The Act should also mandate the Commission to publish the audited accounts within a specified timeline.
Penalties for the breach of the timelines shall be specified too.

**Continuation of Section-5..
The Act made mention of “..as soon as possible..”.
The phrase above is too weak, and is not strong enough to compel the commission to try to beat any definite timelines, since there are no specified timelines that goes with the directive.
Thus, there is need to replace the phrase: “as soon as possible” with a measurable definite timeline.

PART-II: (Staff of the Commission)
Section-8:
(About the staffing of the Commission).
In addition to the existing sub-sections, more sub-sections are needed in Section-8, in order to minimize ambiguity.

(1) When it comes to temporary staffing and ad-hoc staffing, the Act should compel the Commission to do proper documentations of their credentials, and most importantly, do a verification of their identities and credentials.

(2) The Act should make it clear that any breach of the provisions of the Act by the temporary staff or Adhoc staff would be met with the adequate penalties, and that the commission should not withhold or hide the identities (or personal information) of such persons from the Law.

PART-III: (Register of Voters and Voter's Registration)
Section-9(5):
The Act should make reference to the NIMC-ACT-2007, (especially Section-5(a) of the NIMC-Act) which gave the NIMC the authority to harmonize and integrate all existing identification databases into the NIN database, both for Citizens and Non-citizens.
Thus,, NIN verification is very necessary for every voter on the commission’s register, in order to ascertain those who are Citizens.

(Nevertheless,,
It is still left for the National Assembly Lawmakers to decide whether the NIMC-ACT-2007 should interfere with the provisions of the Electoral-Act)

Section-9(6):
The Act should unbundle the sub-section-6 of Section-9, and separate the timelines for the “Registration of Voters”, from the timeline for the “Updating and Revision of Register of Voters”.
Registration of Voters always comes First, then “Updating and Revision of Register of Voters” would always come later.
Giving a single timeline to the two separate activities would bring about some loopholes in trying to understand the timelines.

The maximum timeline for the stopping of “Registration of Voters” and the “Updating and Revision of Register of Voters” cannot be on the 90th day before the election.
The registration ends first, then, the updating and revision can end on the 90th day.
(Lawmakers Should Take Note.)

The Act can give the Commission the powers to choose the best dates for those separate components in Section-9(6),, or May give definite Timelines for the separate components inside the Act, which the Commission shall abide by.

Section-9(6) of the Act should also add that “the commission shall give a copy, both in hardcopy and in electronic-copy, to the various political parties within 7-days after the Updating and Revision of the Register of Voters had been completed.

Section-10(2), (a)&(b)&(c):
The Act should also include “NIN-Number” of the applicant as part of documents required.
Since the Section-12(1),(a)&(b) of the Act specifically requires the applicant to be a Citizen of Nigeria who had attained the age of 18years - thus, there is need for NIN-Number, which is one of the authentic identifiers for the citizenship and age of persons found within the Nigerian Geographical Space, to be included in the list of requirements.

Section-10(6):
The Act should specify the timeline for the “Claims and Objections”.
At best, it should COINCIDE with the timeline for the “Update and Revision” of the Register.
...
The inclusion of the “Supplementary List” to the “Revised Register” shouldn't happen after the 90th day before the election.
The Electoral-Act should be very clear on the various timelines of the various events and activities.

Section-11(3):
The Act should specify the means and the medium through which the commission shall “specify” the functions and duties of the officers.

(All the intended means and medium should be clearly listed in the Act - such as “Regulations and Guidelines”, “Manuals for Elections”, etc)

Section-13(2):
The Act should adjust the timeline for those who want to apply for transfer of polling unit.
Such a person should apply before the start of the “Revision” period.

(This means that, if someone applied for transfer of polling unit on the 90th day before the election, it won't be treated..)

Section-18(1):
The Act should adjust the timeline in this sub-section, in such a way that such a person should apply before the start of the Revision Period.

Section-18(2):
This sub-section is not very clear.
The sub-section is suggesting that the officer of the Commission can issue a replacement permanent voter's cards instantly, and on the spot, which is not obtainable.
The Act should amend this particular sub-section in order to reflect the true situation.
(The lawmakers should look into this very sub-section.)

Section-19(1)&(2):
The Act should adjust the timeline for the “display of register” in this sub-section so that it can coincide with the timeline for the “Claims and Objections” in Section-10(6).

PART-IV: (Procedure At Election)
Section-25(2)(g):
This paragraph in the Act is very wrong.
It suggests that there is a “Returning Officer” at the “State Collation Center(s) in the case of a Presidential Election”, which is not true.
At the State Collation Centers, there are only State Collation Officers for the Presidential Election, and no Returning Officer.
The Act should correct this mistake.

Section-27(2):
The Act should specify the means and the medium through which the commission shall “specify” the functions and duties of the officers.
(All the intended “means and medium” should be clearly listed in the Act - such as “Regulations and Guidelines”, “Manuals for Elections”, etc. Any means or medium that is not mentioned by the Act is not intended by the Act)

Section-29(5)&(6):
It should be noted here that; In Reality, it is VERY DIFFICULT for an aspirant (who is supposed to be a strong member of the party) to file such a suit challenging his party’s nominated candidate’s credentials and affidavits - knowing fully well that the suit might end up disqualifying their party in the election.
Many Aspirants in the party would prefer Not to challenge the credentials of their party’s candidate in accordance with the provisions of Section-29(5)&(6), because their success would definitely disqualify their candidate and their party, and give victory to another party entirely.
(What if there was a consensus candidate, and there were no other aspirants?)

Nevertheless,, it is up to the Lawmakers to decide whether it is only the aspirants who should challenge the credentials of the Nominated Candidates; and thus, amend the Act accordingly.

Section-29 (Addition)...
In addition to the existing sub-sections in Section-29, another sub-section should be added which clearly specifies the modes and the timelines for the nomination of running-mates of Presidential Candidates and Governorship Candidates.

Section-30(1): - (Addition)
In continuation of sub-section-1 of section-30, the Act should make it very clear that the Name of the Nominated Candidate must ALSO appear on the “Register of Voters” in the Constituency where he or she is seeking to be elected.
(Not only the names of those who nominated him or her should be in the Register of voters)

Section-31: - (Addition)
The Act should should also specify the modes and timelines for the Withdrawal of running-mates of candidates.

Section-33: - (Addition)
The Act should should also specify the modes and timelines for the replacement of running-mates; (whether the running-mate stopped being a running-mate either by death or by withdrawal).

Section-33: (Addition)
The Act shall mandate the Commission to publish the FINAL LIST of candidates (and running-mates) after the expiration of the timeline for the delivery of nomination papers, and withdrawal and replacement of candidates.
(Additional 14 days shall be allowed for the replacement of those who withdrew on the last date allowed for withdrawal before publishing the final list.).

Section-39(1)(2):
The Act should specify the timeline for declaring an unopposed nominated-candidate for a legislative position as elected.

The Act is subtly suggesting that the declaration should be made on the supposed election date, but there will not be an election on that day.
Nevertheless, the Act should be very clear on the timeline.

Section-41(1): - (Addition)
The Act should also include that “the details of the usage of the ‘Electronic Voting Machine or any other voting device’ shall be as prescribed in the Commission’s Regulations and Guidelines, as well as in the Manuals, in accordance with the Act”.

Section-43(1):
(The Act used a timeline of THREE MONTHS)
But all the while, the Act had been using “90-Days”.
Furthermore, 3-months and 90-Days are somehow similar in their duration.
Thus, for the sake of consistency, the Act should continue with the usage of the “90-Days” timeline, and drop the “Three Months”.

Section-47(2):
The Act should specify the means and the medium through which the commission shall “prescribe” the “manner” for accreditation.
(Any “means and medium” that is not intended by the Act Should Not be included in the list of “means and medium”.)

Section-48:
(This Section-48 requires total Correction)
The Act should not introduce lots of ambiguity (or avoid making proper explanations or descriptions) in the guise of trying to be flexible or for making room to accommodate future possibilities.

Thus, Section-48 should read:
“A candidate or a polling agent may challenge the right of a person to vote IF THE PERSON HAD NOT BEEN PROPERLY VERIFIED, CONFIRMED AND/OR AUTHENTICATED in accordance with such procedures as are provided for in this Act”.

Section-50(1):
This section should include the word “Paper”...
Thus, section-50(1) should read;
“Voting at an election under this Act shall be by open secret PAPER ballot”

Section-50(1)&(2):
The Act should specify the means and the medium through which the commission “determines” or “prescribes” the “procedure” or “manner” for the voting at an election, transmission of results, or marking the ballot papers by the voters.
(All the intended “means and medium” should be clearly listed in the Act - such as “Regulations and Guidelines”, “Manuals for Elections”, etc. Any means or medium that is not mentioned by the Act is not intended by the Act)

Section-50(4):
This section should be amended to include the word “Paper”.
Thus, section-50(4) should read:
“All PAPER ballots at an election under this Act at any polling station shall be deposited in the ballot box in the open view of the public”.

Section-50: - (Addition)
In addition to the existing sub-sections, and also, owing to the flexibility of the Section-41 and Section-46.
.. The Section-50 should also include what should be happening with the “Electronic Voting Machine or any other Voting Device” during and after the election.

Section-54(1):
The Act should specify the means and the medium through which the commission “prescribes” the “procedure” or “manner” for the marking the ballot papers by the visually impaired voters.

Section-54(2):
The Act should describe what it means by the term “Off-Site Voting”, either inside the Section-54(2), or inside the glossary in Section-152..

Section-57(2):
Since the Act recognizes the “Electronic Register of Voters” in Section-9(2)(a); the Act should amend this sub-section in such a way that any “Comment” made in the paper-register against any voter during accreditation should also be made immediately inside the electronic register.

Section-58: - (Addition)
In addition to the existing sub-sections; Section-58 should include the prohibition of Presiding Officers and staff of the commission from engaging in physical abuse and physical fights with the polling agents, or with the voters.
(Penalties for physical fights and physical abuse should be specified in the Act).

Section-60(1): - (Addition)
The Act should also include the identification of voided votes in this sub-section, as well as what makes a vote to be a voided vote, and what should be done with voided votes, and how they should be recorded inside the results form.

Source:
https://twitter.com/OkayUmme/status/1691842644316450909

Section-60(5):
The Act should specify the means and the medium through which the commission shall “prescribe” the “manner” for the transmission of the results and the accreditation data.
(Any “means and medium” that is not intended by the Act Should Not be included in the list).

Section-60(5): - (Addition)
This sub-section should replace the word “Transfer” with “Transmission”.
And also, the Act should clearly state the source of the transmission as well as the destination of the transmission.
The equipment and mode for the transmission should be mentioned in the Act.

Section-60(5): - (More Additions)
This sub-section should also indicate the maximum allowable timeline for the delay of the transmission by the presiding officer, and the penalties for delaying the transmission beyond the maximum allowable timeline should be stated in the Act.

Section-60: - (Further Additions)
In addition to all the existing sub-sections; Section-60 should clearly specify that the presiding officer shall first transmit the “AUTOMATICALLY-GENERATED ACCREDITATION DATA” from the voting device, before proceeding to sort and count the results.
After counting the results, the presiding officer shall manually key-in the results, the number of accredited voters, the number of voided votes, and the total votes cast into the transmission software of the voting device, and transmit same to the APPROPRIATE COLLATION SYSTEM

(Here below are the suggested destinations for the transmitted results and accreditation data)

a). Automatically-generated accreditation data should be transmitted to a separate collation system meant specifically for the collation of the Automatically-generated accreditation data in the voting device.

b). The keyed-in results (including the keyed-in accreditation data) should be transmitted to a separate collation-system meant specifically for the electronic collation of the KEYED-IN POLLING UNIT RESULTS. The information contained in the collation system is only visible to the appropriate collation officers through their various collation devices.
...
c). A CLEAR PICTURE of the duly completed and signed results sheet shall be taking with the voting device by the presiding officer, and transmitted to a separate PUBLICLY VIEWABLE SERVER which would be meant specifically for uploading the pictures of the results-sheets.
The pictures uploaded to this server will serve for verification purpose.

d) The collated results that were transmitted by the collation officers should be transmitted to a separate collation-system meant specifically for the electronic collation of only the Collation Officers’ results.
..
The collated results by these collation systems should be made available in the technological “Collation Device” of the Collation Officer or Returning Officer, in such a way that each collation device receives only the results of the collation-centers or polling-units that are directly under its coverage.
...
The Act should also indicate that the results of polling units that fails to be successfully transmitted and electronically collated by the Collation System beyond the maximum time allowed for the delay in transmission shall not be collated by the collation officers...

Results that were not collated by the collation officers due to non-transmission to the collation system, or due to delayed transmission beyond the prescribed timeline, (suggested timeline to be allowed for the delay of the transmission of the polling unit results should be 11:59pm on the election day), can only be considered and added by the returning officer during the final review of the collated results, provided that their photos had been successfully uploaded to the appropriate server which is meant for the uploading of photos of results-sheets before the time the final review by the Returning Officer started.

At the end of the time allowed for transmission of polling-units results, (suggested timeline to be allowed for the delay of the transmission of the polling unit results should be 11:59pm on the election day), all pending direct polling-unit transmission of results to the polling-units collation system shall be suspended, nevertheless, the transmission of the collated results by the collation officers, as well as the uploading of the captured photos of the results-sheets (both the photos of the Polling-units results and those of the collated results in the various collation centers) to the photos-server can continue without being suspended.


Section-62(1):
The Act should specify the means and the medium through which the commission shall “prescribe” “such persons” to which the presiding officer shall “deliver” the results of the polling unit to.

Section-62(2):
The Act should specify the timeline for the commission to compile and update the “National Electronic Register of Election Results” with the latest election results after the declaration of the election results and the winner.
(The Act may consider having a timeline of 14-Days.)

The Act should also specify whether the “National Electronic Register of Election Results” should be made public on the Commission’s website, (or whether it should be an offline repository of election results).


Section-64(4)(a):
The second part of this paragraph should read:
“.... number of accredited voters AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED IN THE VOTING DEVICE and...”

The part that said “..under Section-47(2)..” should read:
“... under section-47(2) and section-60(5)...”

Section-64(4)(b):
The second part of this paragraph should read:
“.... the votes or results THAT ARE KEYED-IN INTO THE VOTING DEVICE and transmitted directly....”

The part that said “..under Section-60(4)..” should read:
“... under section-60(5) of this Act....”

Section-64(5):
“subject to subsection-(1)” should read:
“subject to subsection-(4)”

“..Section-47(2)..” should read:
“...Section-47(2) and Section-60(5)...”

“..Section-60(4)..” should read:
“...Section-60(5).......”


Section-64(5):
Section-64(5) should read:
“Subject to subsection-(4), a collation officer or returning officer shall use the number of accredited voters AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED IN THE VOTING DEVICE and transmitted directly from polling units under Section-47(2) and Section-60(5) of this Act, and the votes or results THAT ARE KEYED-IN INTO THE VOTING DEVICE and transmitted directly from polling units under Section-60(5) of this Act, as well as the transmitted photos of the results to collate and announce the result of an election if a collated result at his or a lower level of collation is not correct.”


Section-64(6)(c):
The paragraph should be adjusted to include:
“.... number of accredited voters AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED IN THE VOTING DEVICE and...”

The part that said “..under Section-47(2)..” should read:
“... under section-47(2) and section-60(5)...”

Section-64(6)(d):
The paragraph should be adjusted to include:
“.... the votes and results THAT ARE KEYED-IN INTO THE VOTING DEVICE and transmitted directly....”

The part that said “..under Section-60(4)..” should now read:
“... under section-60(5) of this Act...”

Suggested Additional Paragraphs to Sub-section-6 of Section-64:

“A collation officer who did not settle ALL the disputes that were raised at the collation center and goes on to announce the collated results with the pending disputes had breached the Act.”
The Act should state the Penalties for such breach”.



THE IMPORTANCE OF SECTION-64:

The Section-64 is the only section which tried to guide the procedures for the Collation of Results after the voting process had been completed.

Thus, there is need to introduce more detailed sub-sections which would throw more light on the proper procedures for the collation of results..

Section-64: - (Further Additions)
In addition to the existing sub-sections; Section-64 should have further sub-sections as suggested below:

a). A Collation Officer or Returning Officer shall have a technological “Collation Device” which provides the collation officer with the appropriate collated results.

(b) The collated results that shall be available on the collation device include the computer-collated results received from the Collation System, as well as the manually collated results that were transmitted by the direct downline collation officers where applicable.

c). The Collation Device of the first-level collation officers (Ward Collation Officers) do not need to have the manually collated results that were transmitted by the direct downline collation officers, since there are no other downline collation officers below them.

d). The collation device of a collation officer or returning officer shall contain only the necessarily applicable transmitted polling units results, or the necessarily applicable computer-collated results as well as the transmitted collated results from the direct down-line collation officers.

(Further Explanations)
This means that a Collation Officer or Returning Officer shall not see the results of any other collation center, or the results of any other polling unit which are not under his or her coverage of collation.

The commission shall ensure the configuration of the electoral devices to perform accordingly as stated in the Act.

e). For the first-level collation officers (Ward-Level collation officers), if there are polling units that are not yet available on the Collation Device, they shall wait until after the expiration of the maximum delay time allowed for polling unit transmission, (suggested timeline to be allowed for the delay of the transmission of the polling unit results should be 11:59pm on the election day), before they can go ahead to collate and announce their results with only the available polling units on the collation device - without adding the results of the missing polling units, -- even when the hard-copy of such Polling-unit results are available,, (or even when the uploaded photos of such Polling-unit results are available are available on the publicly viewable server).

f). For higher-level collation officers and returning officers, if the collated results of any (or some) of the direct downline collation officers are not yet available on the collation device, the affected downline collation officer(s) shall provide the hard-copy and soft-copy of their collated results, as well as an attestation and a proof that the collated results which they presented were the same as the one they transmitted from the COLLATION CENTER, but were delayed due to poor network or other unforseen circumstances.
Nevertheless, the computer-collated results on the device must be used to verify and confirm the Collation.

g). The results on the Collation Device, as well as the process of keying-in of the collated results by the collation officer shall ALL be DISPLAYED and made clearly visible at the Collation Center where the accredited polling agents and media personnel shall see it.

h). At the end of the maximum allowable waiting time for transmission of the Polling-unit results, the commission shall issue an instant notice to all the Collation Officers, and at the same time, suspend all further polling-units results from being transmitted to the collation system, -- until after the final results had been declared, and all possible reviews completed, then the remaining suspended polling-unit results can be transmitted to the collation system..

Nevertheless, the uploading of the photos of the polling unit results to the publicly viewable server which is meant for the photos of results-sheets shall not be suspended.
...
i). At the end of the collation, the collation officer shall key-in the collated Results, total accredited voters, total voided votes, and the total votes into the transmission software of the collation device, and transmit same to the appropriate collation system meant for the Collated Results.

j). A CLEAR PICTURE of the duly completed Collated Results shall be taken with the collation device by the Collation officer, and transmitted to the server which is meant specifically for the pictures of results sheets.
The picture will serve for verification purposes.

k). The penalties for outright NON-TRANSMISSION of the collated results from the collation center by the collation officer should be specified in the Act.
Collation Officers shall be mandated by the Act to transmit their collated results from their various collation centers before leaving to deliver the hard copies of their collated results to the higher collation officer at the higher collation center.

l). The temporary stoppage of the transmission of POLLING UNIT RESULTS by the Commission after the expiration of the maximum delay-time SHALL NOT affect the transmission of the Collated Results by the Collation Officers from their Collation Centers.

m). At the end of the collation by the final returning officer, he or she shall announce the initially collated results without declaring or returning a winner; after which a review period of 72-hours maximum shall be allowed for the returning officer, at the end of which a winner can be declared and returned.

n). During the review period, all the possible disputes to the computer-collated results as well as all the omitted polling unit results that were not transmitted within the window-period for the transmission of polling unit results, shall be fully treated added by the returning officer, provided he or she is satisfied that the photos of the results-sheets of such polling units are available on the appropriate server meant for the uploading of photos of the polling units results, and that they are consistent with the hard-copies that were presented for review; and that these polling units results are also verified and confirmed by the polling agents, else such omitted polling unit results should not be included by the Returning Officer.

o). If all possible disputes, including the disputes to the collated results by the downline collation officers were all treated and settled before the maximum allowed review time of 72-hours, the returning officer may declare the final collated results and return a winner without having to wait for 72-hours.

p). At the end of the review period, if there are still persisting unresolved disputes, the returning officer shall declare the final results and return a winner, putting into consideration the disputes that were already resolved within the review period.

q). The collation as well as the reviewing of the collated results by the Returning officer shall ALL be DISPLAYED, and be made clearly visible at the Final Collation Center where the accredited polling agents and the accredited media personnel shall be seeing it clearly.

r). A returning officer shall key-in the Final Collated Result into his or her collation device and transmit same to the appropriate collation system after the declaration of the final results.
He or she shall also take A CLEAR PICTURE of the Final Collated Result and transmit appropriately.

s). A returning officer who declares the the final result of an election before the elapse of the 72-hours whereas there are still persisting unresolved disputes, had breached the Act.
There should be penalties for such erring Returning Officer.

** (Important Notes):
The Act should explain some of these terms in Section-152..
Such terms as:
“Transmission”,
“Collation System”,
“Server”,
“Collation Device”,
“Computer-Collated Results”,
etc.



Section-65(1):
The Act should also include “the non-transmitted polling units results” in the list of things which the returning officer should have the final decision for..

The Act should specify the procedures for notifying THE COMMISSION that the “declaration and return made by the returning officer was not made voluntarily or was made contrary to the law, regulations and guidelines, and manual for election”.
...
...
Here below is a suggested procedure:
“If a party raises a concern to the commission in writing within 24-hours of the declaration of the results, that the declaration and return by the Returning Officer was not made voluntarily, or was made contrary to the provisions of the law, the regulations and guidelines, and manual for the election, (with full detailed descriptions and explanations); the commission shall issue an official statement within 24-hours of receiving the complaints, in response to the concerns raised, which either refutes the claim, or accepts to look into the claim..
...
If the commission accepts to look into the claim and review the results, the commission shall do so within five days after the issuance of the statement, (making a total of seven days from the day of declaration of final results).
...
If no party raised any concerns to the commission within 24-hours of declaring the final results, then, there shall not be any need for the post-election review of the declared results by the commission. Therefore, any further concerns should be treated at the Election Petition Tribunal.
The timeline of the Review does not affect the timeline for filing the Election Petition at the Tribunal.

Section-68:
The Act should specify the timeline for the posting of the FINAL RESULT OF THE ELECTION by the commission on their notice boards and website, starting from the time of declaration of final result.
In addition to the already-listed information which the posted result shall contain, The following items should also be included in the list of the information which the posted final result must show.
They include: the percentage of voter turnout, number of registered voters, accredited voters, voided votes, total votes cast, the number of uncollated polling units and cancelled polling units, as well as the number of registered voters that are affected by these uncollated and cancelled polling units.

Section-70:
The Act should include that “a breach of the provisions of the guidelines shall be regarded as a breach of the Act”.

Section-71: (Addition)
In continuation of Section-71, The Act should also read: “CLEAR PHOTOS of the completed result-forms in the Wards, LGAs, States and National Levels should also be taken by the Collation Officers and Transmitted to the results Server”.

Source:
https://twitter.com/OkayUmme/status/1692397258384249285

Section-73(1):
This sub-section is a direct repetition of Section-41(2), and thus, IT SHOULD BE REMOVED. (Unless the repetition is for a purpose)

Section-73(2): - (addition)
“Asset-numbers of voting devices” should be included in the list of materials to be recorded by the presiding officers before the start of the election.
Also, the Act should specify what the presiding officer should do at the end of the election at the polling unit..
... (for instance):
“At the end of the election at the polling unit, the presiding officer shall record in the appropriate prescribed forms, the quantities and serial numbers of the REMAINING UNUSED results sheets, ballot papers, and other sensitive materials, as well as the quantities and serial numbers of the USED Results Sheets, Ballot Papers, and other sensitive materials which should be recorded in a separate forms prescribed by the commission.”

Section-73: - (Additions)
In addition to existing sub-sections in Section-73, the Act should add:
“Any polling unit which do not have the quantities and the serial numbers of the USED and the REMAINING UNUSED results sheets, ballot papers, and other sensitive materials properly recorded in the appropriate forms shall be invalid.”

Section-74(1)&(2):
**(As compared to Section-146(1)-to-(4))
The Act should clearly specify the conditions and circumstances that should cause “any party to an election petition” to apply to the Resident Electoral Commissioner in a state for the certified true copies if the Election Results (Section-74), and at the same time also specify the conditions and circumstances that should cause an Election Tribunal or Court of competent jurisdiction to order the “Chief Electoral Commissioner” to produce the polling documents (which might include Election Results) and any other document or packet in his custody or in the custody of any other officer of the Commission.


__________
__________
PART-V: (Political Parties)
Section-75(3)&(4):
There is serious conflict between the timelines of the events in sub-sections (3) and (4).

In sub-section-(3), the Act gave the commission 90 days to respond in writing to the application of the association.
Whereas in sub-section-(4), the Act states that if “After 60-days” of their application for registration, the commission had not informed the association on the contrary, then the association shall be deemed to have been registered.
Therefore, this gives rise to the question whether the “waiting period” is 90-days, Or 60-days??
...
**(For the rest of my write-up,, I will continue making use of the 90-days timeline)..

Lawmakers should take note of this conflict..
Unless there is a clear reason why the “60-days” was even mentioned in the first place, then the Act should state the reasons clearly, otherwise, the Act should remove the 60-days and replace it with 90-days.

Section-76: - (addition)
The continuation of Section-76 should read:
“..Subject to section-75(3), if the commission did not inform the association of their non-registration status until after 90-days of their application, the association shall formally demand for the status of their registration.”
....
If the commission confirmed that it had not registered the association, then, the association may challenge the commission in the federal high court, provided
that the legal action shall be
commenced within 14 days from the date of receipt of the written response from the commission.

Section-77(3): - (addition)
The Act should specify the exact penalties for any party which do not make its “register” available to the commission not later than 30 days before the date for the party primaries, congresses, or convention.
...
And in the event that the party submitted its register to the commission within the allowable timeline, the Act should specify the status of any person (or any newly registered party member) whose name is not on the “register” of the party which was submitted to the commission by the party.

Section-79:
In addition to the existing sub-sections; Section-79 should also include the various conditions and circumstances that would warrant the deregistration of AN ALREADY REGISTERED PARTY, as well as the procedures for the deregistration of such party.

Section-84(8.): - (addition)
The Act should specify the penalty for a party which did not follow the democratic procedures for the election of its delegates in an indirect primaries. The Act should also specify the persons who are qualified to take such cases up against the party in court.

Section-84(12): - (addition)
The Act should specify the timeline towards the party’s Convention or Congress before which a political appointee must resign his position before participating as a voting delegate or an aspirant in the Convention or Congress.

Section-90(4):
The Act should remove “three months”, and replace it with “90 days”, for the sake of consistency in timeline.

Section-92(7):
The Act should specify the category of persons or entities who are qualified to take the erring party, or aspirant, or candidate to court.

Section-95(1):
The Act should specify the means and the medium through which the commission “determines” the “rules and regulations” for campaigns.


________
________
PART-VI: (Area Council)
Section-103(4):
The Act should remove “three months”, and replace it with “90 days” for the sake of consistency in timeline.

Section-103(5):
This section should include the word “Paper”...
Thus, section-103(5) should change to;
“Voting shall be by open-secret PAPER ballot”

Section-105(1):
The Act should specify the timeline for declaring an unopposed nominated-candidate for election as Councillors as elected.
(The Act should specify whether the declaration shall be made on the SUPPOSED FIXED ELECTION DATE, or after the expiration of nomination)

Section-110(8.)(b):
The Act should remove “three months”, and replace it with “90 days”, for the sake of consistency in timeline.

Section-112(2):
The Act should remove “three months”, and replace it with “90 days”, for the sake of consistency in timeline.


_________
_________
PART-VII: (Electoral Offences)
Section-114(b):
The Act should remove “his or herself”, and replace it with “himself or herself”.

Section-120(1):
The Act should remove “..omits to act in breach of...”, and replace it with “...omits to act accordingly, which is in breach of...”

Section-120: - (Addition)
In addition to the sub-sections in the Section-120,, there should be penalties for any collation officer or returning officer who announces false results, (as earlier suggested in the amendments for Section-64(6)).

Section-121(1)(a)&(d):
Remove “...by his or herself...” and replace it with “...by himself or herself...”

Section-121(2):
Remove “...by his or herself...” and replace it with “...by himself or herself...”
Also; Remove “...for his or herself...” and replace it with “...for himself or herself...”

Section-127(a) & Section-128(a)(b):
Remove “...by his or herself...” and replace it with “...by himself or herself...”



________
________
PART VIII: (Election Petitions)
Section-130(1): (Addition)
This sub-section should also clearly explain the differences between the “review of declared results” (as pointed out in Section-65(1)); and the Election Petition Tribunal, as well as the different conditions which leads to either of these.

Section-132(7):
This sub-section-7 of Section-132 is supposed to be a shifted into Section-131, and thus, it should be a sub-section inside Section-131, and not a sub-section of Section-132.

Section-132(8.):
The timeline in the sub-section-8 of section-132 is conflicting with the timeline in the sub-section-6 of section-131 (that is, Section-131(6) & Section-132(8.))
...
That is,, the answer to “the length of time for the election petition tribunal in area council elections to deliver its judgement” is conflicting..
Is it 180-days, or 90-days?
(The Lawmakers should look into this and resolve the timelines)

After resolving the discrepancies in the Timelines as suggested above, the Act should clearly specify the penalties for breaching the timeline (that is, by delaying the delivering of the Judgement by the Tribunal Panel beyond the stipulated time).

Section-134(2): - (Addition)
In continuation of the Sub-section-134(2), the Act should add: “...the ‘instruction or directive of the Commission or of an officer appointed for the purpose of the election’ is Not to be taken to mean the ‘Regulations and Guidelines’ or ‘Manual for Election’ that is published and released by the commission.”

Section-137: - (Addition)
In continuation of the Section-137, the Act should add:
“..provided that the documentary evidence so tendered and admitted, are sufficiently demonstrated and related to the relevant part of the petition during the tribunal..”



_______
_______
PART-IX: (Miscellaneous)
Section-146(1)&(2):
The Act should include the terms “materials” and “devices” inside the list of things which an Election Tribunal or Court of competent jurisdiction can order the Commission to make available for inspection.
(NOT ONLY “DOCUMENTS” ALONE)
The Act also empower the Election Tribunal or Court of competent jurisdiction to also give timelines while issuing the order, beyond which it should be considered a breach.

Section-146(3):
The Act should be modified to also include the phrase below==>
“...reproduce the information that are contained inside the devices..” as part of the activities which the Election Tribunal or the court can order the Commission to perform.

Section-148:
As earlier pointed out in Section-70; the Act should repeat again in Section-148, that: “a breach of the regulations, guidelines, or manuals should be regarded as a breach of the Act, provided the regulations, guidelines, or manuals are not inconsistent with the Provisions of the Act.

Section-148: - (Addition)
In continuation of the Section-148, the Act should add:
“..The most recent publication of the “Regulations and Guidelines”, or “Manual for Elections” overtakes and supercedes all other former versions and publications of the same document as the case may be, provided the most-recent issue is released at least 60 days before the announced date of election”

“...If the commission intends Not to strictly follow any of the procedures outlined in the Regulations and Guidelines, or Manual for Elections, the commission may release an updated version of the Regulations and Guidelines, or Manual for Elections - which outlines the modified procedures which it intends to follow, provided that this is done at least 60 days before the announced date of election, else it becomes invalid”.

Section-149: - (Addition)
In continuation of the Section-149, the Act should add: “...such error becomes invalid when a competent court of law or tribunal determines that the error violates ‘any notice, or form, or document made or given, or any rules made in pursuance of the provisions of the Constitution or of this Act’. Such error, when proven to be substantial enough to affect the outcome of the election, shall cause the election to be Null and Void...”

Section-150:
In addition to the sub-sections in section-150; there should be other sub-sections which should indicate that the Local Government Elections in the State shall be consistent with the provisions of this Act, and that the State Electoral Commissions can apply to the REC of the State in order to borrow and use the electoral devices and voter’s register of the commission.
...
For the suggested sub-section above, the conditions, and the modalities, and the procedures for the application, borrowing, usage, and return of the borrowed materials, devices and documents should be clearly stated in the Act, as well as the penalties for breaching them.
...
If the State Electoral Commission can fund the procurement of similar devices and materials in order to conduct the Local Government elections in the manner prescribed inside the Act, without having to borrow from the Commission, they can procure such devices and materials.
..
The Act should repeat again that the Local Government Elections should be by “Open Secret PAPER Ballot”.


Section-152:
The Act should explain the following terms clearly:
“Collation System”
(Which supposedly should mean: “A decentralized system of many Servers and Computers which are INDEPENDENTLY working on the various data from various sources, but are reporting towards the same output routes”)

Other terms to be explained include:
“Sever”
“Transmission”
“Transfer” (that is, if it still got retained in the Act)
“Electronic Collation”
“Keying-in”
“Collation Device”
“Voting Device”
“Off-Site Voting”
“Computer-Collated Results”
etc..

Source:
https://twitter.com/OkayUmme/status/1692874516358164654

SCHEDULES


FIRST SCHEDULE:
(Rules of Procedure for Election Petitions).

1st-Schedule; Paragraph-4(5)(a)&(b):
The Act should state clearly whether subpoenaed witnesses are allowed to be called by the parties.
If YES, then the Act should specify how the parties should indicate their intentions for subpoenaed witnesses, as well as all the necessary information which would be needed on such witnesses while filing the petition or the reply.

1st-Schedule; Paragraph-5:
The first part of this paragraph contradicts the sub-paragraph-4(5)(c) of the 1st-schedule of the Act.
If the Act really requires that the “copies or list of documents that are to be relied upon at the hearing” are supposed to accompany the filing of the petition (Paragraph-4(5)(c)), then there is no need for the Act to state again in Paragraph-5 that “Evidence NEED NOT TO BE STATED in the petition”

1st-Schedule; Paragraph-5: - (Additions)
a.) In addition to either of Sub-paragraph-4(5)-(c) or Paragraph-5; the Act should use a phrase (or phrases) which would make it possible for the petitioner to use generic terms in their lists to mention the categories of documents which they intend to rely upon during hearing without necessarily specifically naming all the individual documents in the list of the intended documents.

Thus, if the petitioner is not yet certain about the full extents and the specificity of all the intended documents, the Act should allow the petitioner to list the intended documents generically at the time of filing the petition.

Nevertheless, the petitioner shall be bound by the Electoral-Act to be very clear in describing the genre of the documents that were generically listed, and to state the proposed/intended sources for such documents.

b.) The Act should make it clear that a petitioner who is disputing the outcome of an election is NOT bound to very specific on the exact facts and figures during the time of filing of the petition.
Nevertheless, he must clearly state all his findings, and the detailed methodologies he intends to use towards arriving at the exact numbers and figures of the disputed votes (or processes), and how he intends to use such established facts and figures to prove the disputes at the hearing.

The petitioner should also be bound by the Act to present these facts and figures, and every other intended facts and figures during the hearing.

If the sources of such facts and figures are from the polling units; then the facts and figures shall be broken down as concise as possible into States, LGAs, Wards, and Polling Units - as the case may be.

1st-Schedule; Paragraph-12(2):
The Act should state the full Penalties (or the repercussions) on the respondent if he did not clearly set out in his reply, the facts and figures to disprove the claim of the petitioner; even after he had successfully countered all the claims of the petitioner in the petition.

1st-Schedule; Paragraph-28(3):
The Act should remove “three months”, and replace it with “90 days”, for the sake of consistency in timeline.

1st-Schedule; Paragraph-29(3):
The Act should remove the word “Election”, and replace it with the Phrase “Election Petition”.


1st-Schedule; Paragraph-42: - (Addition)
In addition to all the sub-paragraphs in this paragraph, (and subject to sub-paragraphs-4(5)(a)&(b)), the Act should include the procedures for which the parties can calling witnesses on subpoena, as well as how their witness statements on oath shall be submitted, tendered, and admitted - including all the necessary timelines.


1st-Schedule; Paragraph-44:
The Act should state the actual Penalties (or the repercussions) on the respondent if he fails to give evidence that the election of the petitioner was undue.
it is not enough for the respondent to only discredit and/or discountenance the evidence of the petitioner, without giving superior evidence that the election of the petitioner was undue.


1st-Schedule; Paragraph-47(1):
The Act should explain this sub-paragraph further. The sub-paragraph is not very clear.

If “no motion shall be moved”, then why is the same sub-paragraph referring to “motions coming up at the pre-hearing session”??

More explanations of terms and timelines are needed here.


1st-Schedule; Paragraph-51(1):
The Act should be make this sub-paragraph very clear.

[Does it mean that the “individual officer” (in question) from the commission shall also be joined as a respondent, even after the commission itself (as a body) had already been joined as a respondent?]

More explanations are needed in this sub-paragraph.


1st-Schedule: - (Additions)
In addition to all the paragraphs and sub-paragraphs of the First Schedule, the Act should also include the following items.

a.) The Act should clearly state who and who that are supposed to be made the parties to a petition; and also, who are not supposed to be added as parties to the petition.

b.) Where an electoral fraud, or electoral malpractice, or electoral offence had been established during the course of the petition, the perpetrators as well as the beneficiaries of such electoral fraud, or electoral malpractice, or electoral offence shall be penalized as appropriate during the time of judgement.

If the electoral fraud, or electoral malpractice, or electoral offence turns out to be “criminal” in nature, then a criminal offence shall be filed against the perpetrators and/or beneficiaries of the electoral fraud, or electoral malpractice, or electoral offence.


AND WITH THAT LAST SUGGESTION,, I COME TO THE END OF MY SUGGESTIONS..

Source:
https://twitter.com/OkayUmme/status/1703693413701349683

MY PERSONAL OPINIONS ON HOW THE “ELECTRONIC VOTING OPTION” CAN BE ACHIEVABLE IN THE NIGERIAN ELECTORAL PROCESS..

It must be noted that before Electronic Voting can be achieved,, the Electoral-Act must have already made the INSTANT Electronic Transmission and INSTANT Electronic Collation of Election Results mandatory and compulsory... And that the Commission (INEC) must have already perfected the usage of the electronic transmission and collation of results, as well as the review and announcement of the official results.


In Section-41(1) of the Electoral-Act-2022, the Act made use of the Term “electronic voting machine or any other voting device for the conduct of elections”.
This means that the Electoral-Act envisages the possibility of expanding the Electoral Technologies in the nearest future to include Electronic Voting Technologies too.
This also means that the Electronic Voting Option is highly achievable and obtainable in Nigeria.

All that it would take is to amend the Electoral-Act in order to INCLUDE the “Electronic Voting Option” as one of the Options for casting the ballot.

It will not be a good idea to make “Electronic Voting” the only method of voting for all the voters.

Thus, the Section-50(1) and Section-103(5) of the Electoral-Act should be adjusted to read thus:
“Voting at an election under this Act shall either be by open secret paper ballot, or by open secret electronic voting with the use of the electronic voting machine; and both methods of voting shall be happening simultaneously at the Polling Unit”.

Like I pointed out earlier,, before the members of the National Assembly can successfully add the electronic voting option in the Electoral-Act,, the INEC must have already perfected their acts in the electronic-accreditation, electronic-transmission, and electronic-collation, and in the instant synchronization of all electoral data across all the electronic platforms for the storage and processing and display of election data on the election day.

Here below are the 5 things which the INEC must have perfected their acts in, before Nigeria can think of having electronic voting option included in the Electoral-Act.
.
1. Electronic Accreditation for all voters.
The compulsory BVAS Accreditation and authentication of voters by the INEC must be made mandatory and compulsory.
(This can be considered as “Achieved” in the current electoral dispensation of Nigeria.)

2. Instant Synchronisation of the Electronic Accreditation Data for all voters.
Once anyone gets accredited, whether on the BVAS or on the Proposed Voting-Machine,, the accreditation information gets instantly synchronised on the electronic register of voters, and thus, the person cannot be able to present himself to be accredited again for voting.

3. Bimodal biometric/facial authentication of all voters.
The bimodal authentication of all the voters before voting must be made to be mandatory and compulsory.

4. Instant Electronic Transmission and Electronic Collation of results at the end of voting exercise.
(This too should also be made to be mandatory and compulsory too..)

5. Publicly viewable “Results-Dashboard” and/or “results-viewing-portal”..
There should be a properly arranged dashboard or portal where the results of all the levels of results (both the polling unit results and the collated results), and all the categories of results (including both the paper-ballots and electronic ballots) are instantly available, and where they can all be viewed separately; including both the initial electronic collations of the results, as well as the Official Reviewed Collated Results.

With these five parameters fully available and fully operational for all the voters and for all the election results, then it will be very easy to include the electronic-voting option in the Electoral-Act without much problems..

Meanwhile,, if the INEC cannot guarantee that all these five conditions can be met completely and comfortably,, then, there is no need “wishing” to have the Electronic Voting Option included in the Electoral-Act For the Nigerian System.




Nevertheless...
After the Electronic Voting Option had been included in the Electoral-Act, the Act should also make some things mandatory and compulsory, which include:

1. “That all the electronic machines and voting devices shall always be live online, and be constantly synchronised with the electronic register, and also constantly synchronised with all the necessary Collation Systems and servers throughout the whole time that the election is going on”.

2. “That the number of accredited voters and the number of votes that were cast on the machines shall be temporarily stored inside the electronic machine, and not to be made visible on the INEC’s Results-Dashboard, until the presiding officer synchronizes the data on the Electronic Machine with those of the Paper-ballot votes, and transmit the total final results to the COLLATION SYSTEM”.

3. “That the results from the polling-units (as well as all the electronically collated, and the reviewed collated results) should be well categorized on the results-dashboard in such a way that the paper-ballot votes are sorted and collated differently from the electronically cast votes”.

4. “That after announcing the final results of the election and declaring the winner, the INEC shall instantly publish on the INEC’s official website, the Electronic Versions of the Electronically-Collated Results (which were gotten from the direct electronic collation), as well as the “Reviewed Collated Results” which were gotten from the reviewing of the Electronically-Collated Results. The reviews are to be done by the INEC’s Collation Officers and Returning Officer.
The INEC shall make these two sets of results available for download in a readable format”.

Source:
https://twitter.com/OkayUmme/status/1703866321690153262

MY PERSONAL OPINIONS ON HOW THE “REMOTE ELECTRONIC VOTING WITH MOBILE DEVICES” CAN BE ACHIEVABLE IN THE NIGERIAN ELECTORAL PROCESS..

If the Electoral-Act intends to expand the “Electronic Voting Option” even further, in such a way that it can accommodate the remote voting with mobile devices,, then more security measures are required to be included in the Act.

In addition to all the five prerequisite conditions for the inclusion of the Electronic Voting Option in the Electoral-Act, the Act should also make these following conditions mandatory:

1. “That the remote voting software or Application shall always be live online, and constantly synchronised with the electronic register, and also constantly synchronised with all the necessary Collation Systems and servers throughout the moment when the user is voting”.

2. “That only ONE user can log-on to the voting software or Application on any device, and that such a user cannot be simultaneously logged-on on more than ONE device at a time. And that ONLY THE USER who is logged-on on any device can vote with that device he or she is logged-on on the election day”.

3. “That no user can log-on on the Voting software or Application on any device anywhere on the election day - once the time-window for the election on the election day had started counting”.

4. “That the identification of the user’s voter’s-card details on the election day - before the actual authentication and voting - shall ONLY be by “scanning” of the card, and Not by inputting the card’s details in the voting app for search”.

5. “That after the successful bimodal biometric/facial authentication of the remote voter, the voting software or Application shall continue to “view” the face of the user (who is now referred to as a voter) while he or she casts his or her vote, to ensure that the voter keeps his or eyes on the screen while voting, otherwise the software or Application shall prompt the voter to keep his or her eyes on the screen while voting”.

6. “That whenever the voting software or Application detects other pair (or pairs) of eyes other than those of the voter, the app should prompt the voter to suspend the voting exercise for some seconds and go to a place with sufficient privacy without exiting the voting software or Application -- so as to avoid breaching the rule of secrecy of the voting exercise”.

7. “That after the successful online voting by the user, the voting module in the voting software or Application shall automatically close, and the results of his or her casted vote and accreditation data shall get instantly transmitted to the dedicated “waiting” server which serves the particular polling-unit where he or she is registered to vote.”

8. “That the dedicated “waiting” server shall function as a temporary storage to the accreditation and voting data, which serves each polling unit (and keeps such data well secured, and away from being transmitted to the collation systems and/or to the results-dashboard), pending the time the presiding officer of the polling unit synchronizes all the data that are related to the polling-unit at the end of election, and transmit them to the Collation System”.

9. “That once a user had successfully completed his bimodal authentication for the sake of voting, the voting software or Application must ensure that he or she casts his or her votes as quickly as possible, in order to avoid unforseen circumstances; since any abrupt power outage or malfunctioning of the device after the successful authentication - which abruptly causes the voting software or Application to go offline - shall cause the voting software or Application to submit a blank/voided vote, and therefore the person cannot present himself again for accreditation and voting - even at the polling unit.
Since the electronic devices for accreditation and authentication at the polling unit would be showing that the person had already voted”.

10. “That the INEC shall configure the voting software or Application in such a way that..
immediately the results get transmitted from the polling-unit by the presiding officer, the software or Application notifies the user that the results from his or her polling unit had been transmitted”.

11. “That the results of the election at all levels shall be well categorized on the results-dashboard in such a way that the paper-ballot votes are sorted and collated differently from the electronically cast votes at the polling-units, and that they are also differently sorted from the remotely cast votes”.

12. “That after announcing the final results of the election and declaring the winner, the INEC shall instantly publish on the INEC’s official website, the Electronic Versions of the Electronically-Collated Results (which were gotten from the direct electronic collation), as well as the “Reviewed Collated Results” which were gotten from the reviewing of the Electronically-Collated Results. The reviews are to be done by the INEC’s Collation Officers and Returning Officer.
The INEC shall make these two sets of results available for download in a readable format”.

Source:
https://twitter.com/OkayUmme/status/1703879677096419716

BluntCrazeMan:
Source:
https://twitter.com/OkayUmme/status/1692397258384249285

Any amendment that does not allow the rank and file of the commission to become RECs and National Commissioners is babbash.

It's only a madman that would allow Tinubu to appoint MC Oluomo as a REC in a state and expect that when election is held in that state MC Oluomo will not do the bidding of his master.

Righthussle:
Any amendment that does not allow the rank and file of the commission to become RECs and National Commissioners is babbash.

Well,, such laws are Constitutional Laws..
It cannot be amended by only amending the Electoral-Act alone..

For such laws to be amended, then, it is the Constitution that should first be amended, not the Electoral-Act alone.


(I guess you understood what I am trying to explain here??)

Fergie001..
Here is something I came up with..

I hope it would guide our lawmakers well when the right time for the amendment comes.

Garfield1..


You once told me to meet my Lawmaker and give him all my suggestions...
I am yet to know the list of Senators and HOR members that are in the Senate Committee on Electoral Matters, and House Committee on Electoral Matters..

But whenever I get to know who they are,, I will start finding ways to make these suggestions to get across to them.

Penguin2, Litigator, SmartPolician, Racoon, Dtruthspeaker.

BluntCrazeMan:
Penguin2, Litigator, SmartPolician, Racoon, Dtruthspeaker.

Sorry. I told you on other thread that even if man makes I million laws and amendments it would never be good or perfect enough.

Dtruthspeaker:
Sorry. I told you on other thread that even if man makes I million laws and amendments it would never be good or perfect enough.

I guess I remember that.


And I remember someone asking you if “NO LAWS” is the best option..

I couldn't get your direct response to that question though

Medicine after death

https://www.nairaland.com/7230596/important-things-should-discussing-during

helinues:
Medicine after death

https://www.nairaland.com/7230596/important-things-should-discussing-during

After Death.??
How??

WON'T THERE BE ELECTIONS IN THE FUTURE.??
Or you think that this election is going to be the very last election in this country.??

Or you think this write-up of mine is about this particular very dammed “electioneering period”??


I am talking about our future elections.
So, get lost with your so-called “electioneering period”.

BluntCrazeMan:
Well,, such laws are Constitutional Laws..
It cannot be amended by only amending the Electoral-Act alone..

For such laws to be amended, then, it is the Constitution that should first be amended, not the Electoral-Act alone.


(I guess you understood what I am trying to explain here??)

Ok.

BluntCrazeMan:
After Death.??
How??

WON'T THERE BE ELECTIONS IN THE FUTURE.??
Or you think that this election is going to be the very last election in this country.??

Or you think this write-up of mine is about this particular very dammed “electioneering period”??


I am talking about our future elections.
So, get lost with your so-called “electioneering period”.

Dont you have manners or respect when talking to people?

Righthussle:
Ok.

Cool

helinues:
Dont you have manners or respect when talking to people?

Where is the disrespect and lack-of-manners??


Point at it.

You will Eventually Become Alright by this time Tomorrow Kukutente23

BluntCrazeMan:
Where is the disrespect and lack-of-manners??


Point at it.

Put on your glasses and check the emboldened.

You are fond of disrespecting others with contrary opinion from yours. How do you think you can grow with such attitude

helinues:
Dont you have manners or respect when talking to people?

Can you work as my secretary?

Mabizeka:
Can you work as my secretary?

If you get a work not to talk of meaningful life, you won't be trolling others for years.

helinues:
If you get a work not to talk of meaningful life, you won't be trolling others for years.

Where did you see my moniker in your followers? I'm a respectable CEO in Abuja. I've heard about your pathetic story and wants to help make you somebody in life so that your aged parents can be proud of you. Can you speak and write fluent English?

helinues:
Put on your glasses and check the emboldened.

You are fond of disrespecting others with contrary opinion from yours. How do you think you can grow with such attitude

You just rushed in and started dragging my line of thoughts, rather than saying anything about the opinion I had..
You didn't even have a contrary opinion.
You just rushed in to drag me around.

So, you gatto get lost okay.!!

You don't drag me anyhow by telling me what I should be talking about and what I shouldn't talk about.

If what I wrote in the main post had errors,, or that they are not true,, then point them out.
And we discuss..


And not to come and drag me into something else..


Mista-Man,, mind yourself ooo

BluntCrazeMan:
I guess I remember that.

And I remember someone asking you if “NO LAWS” is the best option..

I couldn't get your direct response to that question though

My direct response was that we always have Laws and we have The Laws we need and it is not made by men.

And I went on to point out that all these law making by men and governance by men is in breach of That Great Law which is why all that they do will always have leaks of problems.

When they plug one leak another pops out which has always been since those white bandits brought this destruction called government.

Dtruthspeaker:
My direct response was that we always have Laws and we have The Laws we need and it is not made by men.

And I went on to point out that all these law making by men and governance by men is in breach of That Great Law which is why all that they do will always have leaks of problems.

When they plug one leak another pops out which has always been since those white bandits brought this destruction called government.

Remember I told you that all laws can be tweaked.

No matter how natural and how universal they are.

Nevertheless,, some laws had become well tested that they had proven to guide the actions of men with almost impeccable records..

Dtruthspeaker:
....We have The Laws we need and it is not made by men.....

This Law you talked about, does it have a name?

Total digitalisation of our whole electoral process from voting to automatic result collation and announce. INEC should be made total independent of government control via strong institutional reforms

BluntCrazeMan:
You just rushed in and started dragged my line of thoughts, rather than saying anything about the opinion I had....

You think mummified zombies have a life of their own or sound rational reasoning? Why do you think they are called zombies?

BluntCrazeMan:
Remember I told you that all laws can be tweaked.

No matter how natural and how universal they are.

Nevertheless,, some laws had become well tested that they can guide the actions of men with almost impeccable records..

You can't tweak or amend a law you did not make. That is why the only laws that they could tweak is their own weak and always flawed laws

Parachoko:
You will Eventually Become Alright by this time Tomorrow Kukutente23

I started working on this very topic since May-2023..
Even though I initially didn't intend to post it here on Nairaland.



So,, because it coincidentally got posted today, and you think it was all about today and tomorrow??


Now answer me...
After tomorrow,, are there not going to be Elections again in Nigeria?