I have followed with interest the information coming from the Kano judgement and the issues from it.
The kernel of the judgement is cancellation of unsigned ballot papers which were in favour of NNPP totaling over 166,000.
The prevailing opinion stemming from the judgement is that any ballot papers not signed and stamped by the Presiding Officer should be rejected as invalid. This raised two questions in my mind.
1. Towards the elections, INEC voter education unit informed the public about means of knowing fake and genuine ballot papers.
2. If a Presiding Officer by error of commission forgot to sign ballot papers, it seems from this judgement that the voter and the benefitting party stand to bear the brunt of his error.
I found 2 to be unfair given the fact of 1 which never included signature and stamp as means if identifying genuine ballot papers.
Thus, I consulted the electoral act 22 and I've reproduced the particular section which I think deals with ballot papers signing below.
Section 63

(1) Subject to subsection (2), a ballot paper which does not bear
official mark prescribed by the Commission shall not be counted.
(2) If the returning officer is satisfied that a ballot paper which does not
bear the official mark was from a book of ballot papers which was furnished
to the presiding officer of the polling unit in which the vote was cast for use at
the election in question, he or she shall, notwithstanding the absence of the
official mark, count that ballot paper.

From here, it is obvious that there's a remedy prescribed for unsigned or unmarked ballot papers. So i wonder if APC showed in court that the ballot papers were not from INEC or rejected by the returning officer because I think that's the only case where the ballot papers should be rejected according to the Act.

cc: fergie001
garfield1
What do you guys think about this?

Forget that thing, druggie alert will change the laws anytime.

That's the sad situation of Nigeria

APC proved to the court that, those unsigned papers were stuffed in the ballot boxes, they called witnesses that testified they were forced to count ballots that weren't cast at the polling units.


You APC haters have been trying very hard to rubbish that judgement. Have you asked yourself why 166 000 unsigned papers goes to one party alone? No matter how sentimental you are, you should know that it was all pre arranged.

JAMO84:
APC proved to the court that, those unsigned papers were stuffed in the ballot boxes, they called witnesses that testified they were forced to count ballots that weren't cast at the polling units.


You APC haters have been trying very hard to rubbish that judgement. Have you asked yourself why 166 000 unsigned papers goes to one party alone? No matter how sentimental you are, you should know that it was all pre arranged.

Good answer

This was INEC's error, their defence was weak, very weak.

They have a way out though which I don't know if they pleaded at the tribunal.

If they like, they should not argue that these ballot papers were not tied to certain PUs. Their lawyers need to be good enough.

Kukutente23:
I have followed with interest the information coming from the Kano judgement and the issues from it.
The kernel of the judgement is cancellation of unsigned ballot papers which were in favour of NNPP totaling over 166,000.
The prevailing opinion stemming from the judgement is that any ballot papers not signed and stamped by the Presiding Officer should be rejected as invalid. This raised two questions in my mind.
1. Towards the elections, INEC voter education unit informed the public about means of knowing fake and genuine ballot papers.
2. If a Presiding Officer by error of commission forgot to sign ballot papers, it seems from this judgement that the voter and the benefitting party stand to bear the brunt of his error.
I found 2 to be unfair given the fact of 1 which never included signature and stamp as means if identifying genuine ballot papers.
Thus, I consulted the electoral act 22 and I've reproduced the particular section which I think deals with ballot papers signing below.
Section 63

From here, it is obvious that there's a remedy prescribed for unsigned or unmarked ballot papers. So i wonder if APC showed in court that the ballot papers were not from INEC or rejected by the returning officer because I think that's the only case where the ballot papers should be rejected according to the Act.

cc: fergie001
garfield1
What do you guys think about this?

From the court proceedings,even inec admitted fatally that in several polling units,thugs invaded polling units with already thumbprinted ballot papers and forced inec staffs to accept them not minding bvas.that is subsection 2 of 63 has been satisfied in favour of apc.those invalid ballot papers were never the fault of inec

JAMO84:
APC proved to the court that, those unsigned papers were stuffed in the ballot boxes, they called witnesses that testified they were forced to count ballots that weren't cast at the polling units.


You APC haters have been trying very hard to rubbish that judgement. Have you asked yourself why 166 000 unsigned papers goes to one party alone? No matter how sentimental you are, you should know that it was all pre arranged.

Unfortunately, allegations of ballot papers stuffing is not like before. It is not about calling witnesses.
Refer to 1 above. INEC educated everyone about how to know fake ballot papers from the originated original. There are watermarks, seals and embellishments on each ballot paper. Apart from that, the ballot papers allocated for each PU are serially marked. It is also a requirement of the Electoral Act section 42. So if a ballot paper does not match a serial number allocated to a PU, it is automatically fake.
If it is within the serial number, the question of ballot paper snuffing no longer arise as long as total votes does not exceed accredited voters on BVAS.
In any case, it is farfetched to claim that a state ruled by APC was rigged against APC in the presence of security agents controlled by same APC govt.

garfield1:


From the court proceedings,even inec admitted fatally that in several polling units,thugs invaded polling units with already thumbprinted ballot papers and forced inec staffs to accept them not minding bvas.that is subsection 2 of 63 has been satisfied in favour of apc.those invalid ballot papers were never the fault of inec

Well, in that case, the elections of those PUs should have been cancelled. That's what EA says not to single out particular ballot papers for rejection.

JAMO84:
APC proved to the court that, those unsigned papers were stuffed in the ballot boxes, they called witnesses that testified they were forced to count ballots that weren't cast at the polling units.


You APC haters have been trying very hard to rubbish that judgement. Have you asked yourself why 166 000 unsigned papers goes to one party alone? No matter how sentimental you are, you should know that it was all pre arranged.

We're those 166 000 the only unsigned ones?

Provide evidence, una no see...una go explain tire.

Lanretoye:
Provide evidence, una no see...una go explain tire.

I'm providing evidence for you directly from the Electoral Act that there's no such thing as "unsigned ballot papers" being singled out for rejection by the courts.
You're here trolling.
At least apply your intelligence and show us a superior argument.
I particularly will love to learn from you.

Kukutente23:

Well, in that case, the elections of those PUs should have been cancelled. That's what EA says not to single out particular ballot papers for rejection.

Well,inec failed to cancel them and the court the final arbiter is helping them to quarantine the votes via apc request
It is disappointing that you are reasoning this due to bitterness for APC you are saying votes are being singled when you know the truth.Apc challenged invalid NNPP votes in those disputed areas.Apc did not challenge their own votes or all votes but only NNPP votes sir.A petitioner in an election case challenges the winner not himself. If NNPP feels aggrieved,they would have challenged apc votes too but failed to.Inec made it easier for Apc

Kukutente23:

I'm providing evidence for you directly from the Electoral Act that there's no such thing as "unsigned ballot papers" being singled out for rejection by the courts.
You're here trolling.
At least apply your intelligence and show us a superior argument.
I particularly will love to learn from you.

Unsigned,unstamped,unmarked,undated

Garfield1 ,

You are making an intelligent point, APC might have fairly won the election, but NNPC decided to use the language APC understands against them, APC having been trending for corrupt electoral practices, what do u have to say about thugs threatening voters during the last gubernatorial elections, they defranchised thousands of eligible voter, that wasn't fair and you know it.

kereman1:
Garfield1 ,

You are making an intelligent point, APC might have fairly won the election, but NNPC decided to use the language APC understands against them, APC having been trending for corrupt electoral practices, what do u have to say about thugs threatening voters during the last gubernatorial elections, they defranchised thousands of eligible voter, that wasn't fair and you know it.

I've been a victim of that so that is wrong.all parties must win fairly and legally.even if you want to rig,you can do it codedly by being on the side of the law without threatening people.

garfield1:


Well,inec failed to cancel them and the court the final arbiter is helping them to quarantine the votes via apc request
It is disappointing that you are reasoning this due to bitterness for APC you are saying votes are being singled when you know the truth.Apc challenged invalid NNPP votes in those disputed areas.Apc did not challenge their own votes or all votes but only NNPP votes sir.A petitioner in an election case challenges the winner not himself. If NNPP feels aggrieved,they would have challenged apc votes too but failed to.Inec made it easier for Apc

Where is it in the electoral act to quarantine votes?
If APC challenged votes based on "unsigned ballots" the challenge is futile as far as electoral act is concerned. That's the fact

garfield1:


Unsigned,unstamped,unmarked,undated

Where is that an offence in the electoral act?

Story story
It's like saying armed robbery is a crime but if the suspect can give a very pitiable and sympathetic reason why he endulged in it, he should be pardoned.

fergie001:
This was INEC's error, their defence was weak, very weak.

They have a way out though which I don't know if they pleaded at the tribunal.
If they like, they should not argue that these ballot papers were not tied to certain PUs. Their lawyers are m*d.

I get you. But my question which I asked the other day is if unsigned ballot papers is ground for nullifying those votes as far as electoral act is concerned.
I believe electoral act allows the returning officer to accept unsigned ballots so I wonder why the tribunal will cancel votes simply because ballot papers are unsigned

Kukutente23:

I get you. But my question which I asked the other day is if unsigned ballot papers is ground for nullifying those votes as far as electoral act is concerned.

Even the SC have held this in the past that an unsigned document is worthless and of no evidential or judicial value (Maku v Al-Makura). In cases of unsigned, undated ballot papers the balance of probabilities swings to the Respondents, especially INEC. (Ucha v Elechi 2012, Buhari v Obasanjo, Awolowo v Shagari).

I believe electoral act allows the returning officer to accept unsigned ballots so I wonder why the tribunal will cancel votes simply because ballot papers are unsigned

You can imagine that you are not a lawyer but you are even talking about a returning Officer. What stopped INEC or the other respondents from even inviting the returning Officer or even any INEC Ward Collation Officer to testify?

They called no witnesses; not INEC, not Abba Yusuf and not NNPP.

On another day, tribunals look away from these things and just favour the Party on seat but this tribunal didn't even though they sounded a bit on vengeance mission against the NNPP.

Look @ this page from the judgement below.....


However, Abba can escape on technicalities but he has to be careful.

Even if the 166,000 votes were rejected, what was the margin of defeat?

Abba won with more than 500,000votes

richidinho:
Even if the 166,000 votes were rejected, what was the margin of defeat?

Abba won with more than 500,000votes

Which election are you talking about?

Kukutente23:
I have followed with interest the information coming from the Kano judgement and the issues from it.
The kernel of the judgement is cancellation of unsigned ballot papers which were in favour of NNPP totaling over 166,000.
The prevailing opinion stemming from the judgement is that any ballot papers not signed and stamped by the Presiding Officer should be rejected as invalid. This raised two questions in my mind.
1. Towards the elections, INEC voter education unit informed the public about means of knowing fake and genuine ballot papers.
2. If a Presiding Officer by error of commission forgot to sign ballot papers, it seems from this judgement that the voter and the benefitting party stand to bear the brunt of his error.
I found 2 to be unfair given the fact of 1 which never included signature and stamp as means if identifying genuine ballot papers.
Thus, I consulted the electoral act 22 and I've reproduced the particular section which I think deals with ballot papers signing below.
Section 63

From here, it is obvious that there's a remedy prescribed for unsigned or unmarked ballot papers. So i wonder if APC showed in court that the ballot papers were not from INEC or rejected by the returning officer because I think that's the only case where the ballot papers should be rejected according to the Act.

cc: fergie001
garfield1
What do you guys think about this?

Did the returning officers testify during the pendency of the case that they were satisfied with the ballot?

Kukutente23:

Where is it in the electoral act to quarantine votes?
If APC challenged votes based on "unsigned ballots" the challenge is futile as far as electoral act is concerned. That's the fact

The votes did not carry the official marks of inec and wasn't from the ballot booklets as prescribed under section 63 (1) and wasn't meant for those polling units.inec staffs reported these incidences in form ec40G which apc brought to the court.the case is dead

fergie001:

Even the SC have held this in the past that an unsigned document is worthless and of no evidential or judicial value (Maku v Al-Makura). In cases of unsigned, undated ballot papers the balance of probabilities swings to the Respondents, especially INEC. (Ucha v Elechi 2012, Buhari v Obasanjo, Awolowo v Shagari).


You can imagine that you are not a lawyer but you are even talking about a returning Officer. What stopped INEC or the other respondents from even inviting the returning Officer or even any INEC Ward Collation Officer to testify?

They called no witnesses; not INEC, not Abba Yusuf and not NNPP.

On another day, tribunals look away from these things and just favour the Party on seat but this tribunal didn't even though they sounded a bit on vengeance mission against the NNPP.

Look @ this page from the judgement below.....


However, Abba can escape on technicalities but he has to be careful.

The point I was making is what that snapshot of the judgment just cleared. Nigeria's justice system is adversarial as we all know
I remember the SC stating that elections are presumed to have held, and held in satisfaction of the demands of EA. If that is the case, what the tribunal is asking for in my own humble view is for the 1st Respondent to show that 63(2) was adhered to by calling the presiding officer to testify, which is in conflict with that particular pronouncement don't you think?
Secondly, it is easy to see from the screenshot that the Respondent's aim was to prove violence which leads to cancellation of results which is clearly provided for in EA while APC wanted votes deducted even though violence occurred. My point is why the tribunal will choose to go with APC's submission, which is weak in my view and ignore that of NNPP which is standing on more solid ground. I mean which is fairer and more in tune with EA. Cancellation of PU results or sifting of votes?

fergie001:

Even the SC have held this in the past that an unsigned document is worthless and of no evidential or judicial value (Maku v Al-Makura). In cases of unsigned, undated ballot papers the balance of probabilities swings to the Respondents, especially INEC. (Ucha v Elechi 2012, Buhari v Obasanjo, Awolowo v Shagari).


You can imagine that you are not a lawyer but you are even talking about a returning Officer. What stopped INEC or the other respondents from even inviting the returning Officer or even any INEC Ward Collation Officer to testify?

They called no witnesses; not INEC, not Abba Yusuf and not NNPP.

On another day, tribunals look away from these things and just favour the Party on seat but this tribunal didn't even though they sounded a bit on vengeance mission against the NNPP.

Look @ this page from the judgement below.....


However, Abba can escape on technicalities but he has to be careful.

If you read ground 2 of the judgment,inec already reported these incidences and infractions in form EC40G in almost all the disputed units.documentary evidence is already in favour of apc which made the tribunal order for rerun in about 235,000 units.
In ground three when the ballot papers were further examined,the court went further to nullify them.so I don't know the technicalities he will rely on esp when the respondents failed to put up a good defence

seunmsg:


Did the returning officers testify during the pendency of the case that they were satisfied with the ballot?

The returning officer does not need to testify. The EA does not require them to. Go and read section 63 and 64 very well. The returning officer is to write a report where he rejects ballots according to 64. But no such requirement is asked of him for 63.

garfield1:



The votes did not carry the official marks of inec and wasn't from the ballot booklets as prescribed under section 63 (1) and wasn't meant for those polling units.inec staffs reported these incidences in form ec40G which apc brought to the court.the case is dead

@fergie001 is this true according to the judgement with you? Did the presiding officer write a report rejecting ballot only to go ahead and count same ballots?

garfield1:


If you read ground 2 of the judgment,inec already reported these incidences and infractions in form EC40G in almost all the disputed units.documentary evidence is already in favour of apc which made the tribunal order for rerun in about 235,000 units.
In ground three when the ballot papers were further examined,the court went further to nullify them.so I don't know the technicalities he will rely on esp when the respondents failed to put up a good defence

235,000 units?? How many PUs are in Kano that rerun is ordered in 235,000?
Dey take am easy na

Kukutente23:

@fergie001 is this true according to the judgement with you? Did the presiding officer write a report rejecting ballot only to go ahead and count same ballots?

Read the judgment first.it is on cable news,download it.the presiding officers were forced to declare wrong results at polling stations but at the collation centres wrote the true situation

Kukutente23:

235,000 units?? How many PUs are in Kano that rerun is ordered in 235,000?
Dey take am easy na

Votes not unit...
Let me clarify something.even though the law recognises everything inec does on election day as regular,a smart lawyer can go round this like in imo and Kano states by challenging specific results and ballot papers.apc almost succeeded in osun if not that bvas wasn't tendered.
Again,take note that unlike in criminal cases that must be proven beyond doubt,civil cases are not required to be proven so.the proofs are based on probabilities and preponderances.if a petitioner has weightier and compelling or manifest evidences,he has discharged the burden of proof and it will be now left for the respondents to rebut this.that is why the regularity is based on a rebuttable presumption.
Apc called 33 witnesses who are polling agents or voters which is crucial.they tendered documents and also documents tendered by inec supported the case of apc. Inec brought only one who testified against interest.nnpp brought one witness who testified about the membership of kabir.apc quoted section 63(1),section 70-71 which states that all documents from inec which are unsigned by inec is void and tendered the ballot papers to support the case.nnpp quoted subsection two without calling presiding officers to empower that proviso.based on the above,the evidences of apc outweighs that of nnpp and apc discharge the burden of proof to nnpp who failed to rebut it by calling presiding officers.most of the apc allegations were not challenged and are deemed true lawfully.

In summary based on preponderances and probability of evidences,apc has won.if it was a criminal case,it may not have been so.cc fergie001

Kukutente23:

The returning officer does not need to testify. The EA does not require them to. Go and read section 63 and 64 very well. The returning officer is to write a report where he rejects ballots according to 64. But no such requirement is asked of him for 63.

You are fixated on being right because you hate APC. As a result, you can’t see the error in your argument.

APC called several witnesses (party agents) who testified in court that election in the affected polling units were characterized by violence, stuffing of ballot boxes with already thumb printed ballot papers. INEC and NNPP did not call any witness to counter these claims. They did not call the returning officers to testify on oath that the ballot papers were valid and acceptable to them. They did not call the polling officers to testify that there was no violence and stuffing of ballot boxes with already thumb printed ballot papers.

So, it was simply the unsigned, undated, and unstamped ballot papers plus several APC party agents as witnesses with prove of violence and ballot stuffing before the tribunal. So, what should the court do? Discountenance all these evidence when the respondents did not provide anything to the contrary?