garfield1:


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

1. It is in that same Imo case that SC said elections are presumed to have been validly held except proven otherwise.
2. Section 71 refers to result forms and not ballot papers. Your use of ALL DOCUMENTS is false. Section 63(2) allows unmarked ballot papers to be used as long as returning officer is satisfied to their usage.
3. I hope you're aware that oral evidence is no longer ascribed same probative value it had with the previous electoral acts. So calling 1m witnesses is a joke as long as you can't show based on documentary evidence that the election was manipulated. That's why S64 prescribes that returning officer should confirm results collated to tally with those that were transmitted directly from PUs.
4. I'm surprised at this your claim that INEC which declared results stood on the side of the person who wrote petition against them. Should inec not stand by the results it declared instead?

seunmsg:


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?

First of all, go and read what the EA says about violence and stuffing ballot boxes. It calls for outright cancellation of the result and not sifting through to see which votes should be voided or not.
Secondly, oral evidence alone is no longer enough to sway results according to the new EA. It requires documentary evidence as prescribed by s64 and 137

Kukutente23:

1. It is in that same Imo case that SC said elections are presumed to have been validly held except proven otherwise.
2. Section 71 refers to result forms and not ballot papers. Your use of ALL DOCUMENTS is false. Section 63(2) allows unmarked ballot papers to be used as long as returning officer is satisfied to their usage.
3. I hope you're aware that oral evidence is no longer ascribed same probative value it had with the previous electoral acts. So calling 1m witnesses is a joke as long as you can't show based on documentary evidence that the election was manipulated. That's why S64 prescribes that returning officer should confirm results collated to tally with those that were transmitted directly from PUs.
4. I'm surprised at this your claim that INEC which declared results stood on the side of the person who wrote petition against them. Should inec not stand by the results it declared instead?

Documentary evidence tendered by apc esp ec40G shows manifest irregularities.
Documentary evidence also tendered by inec shows massive irregularities.inec obviously decided to be neutral seeing that they couldn't defend the results.
Inec conceded themselves that thugs stuffed ballot boxes with ballot papers even when voting had concluded.i know you want Apc to lose but they got this one.worst case is a partial rerun in which they will still win.

Kukutente23:

First of all, go and read what the EA says about violence and stuffing ballot boxes. It calls for outright cancellation of the result and not sifting through to see which votes should be voided or not.
Secondly, oral evidence alone is no longer enough to sway results according to the new EA. It requires documentary evidence as prescribed by s64 and 137

Inec failed to cancel polling units affected by violence therefore they are at the mercy of apc and it's prayers. Apc cleverly accepted the results but called for the nullification of those invalid votes.
The court relied more on the documentary evidence tendered by apc to make it's judgment not just oral evidence

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?

You have a good point here. It's only left for the respondents to put up a convincing argument.

rolams:


You have a good point here. It's only left for the respondents to put up a convincing argument.

Which they failed to do at the trial stage which is crucial.it is almost impossible to upstage such concurrent findings

INEC did not make it easier for APC, INEC is in connivance with APC!

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

ValarDoharis:
INEC did not make it easier for APC, INEC is in connivance with APC!

How? Must you always oppose apc? I know you hate tinubu but try to be objective,it's nauseating

garfield1:


Which they failed to do at the trial stage which is crucial.it is almost impossible to upstage such concurrent findings

I don't know what came over those lawyers.

rolams:


I don't know what came over those lawyers.

You need good defensive lawyers like wole,ikpeazu,fagbemi,olujimi,dodo etc in this kind of cases.if nnpp don't change their lawyers,they will lose totally.the best they can get now is a partial rerun.you can see that apc in nasarawa,Ogun abd pdp in Enugu used wole

Let us use BVAS and IREV but you supporters of unpopular candidates will not agree and we keep making extremely poor elections after 63yrs of independence!

garfield1:


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:

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.

Your last paragraph, there's a stronghood for every opposition no matter how a ruling party can do to win those areas

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.

how you guys support ridiculousness is very baffling

It wasn't in INEC interest to defend NNPP.
They were also lackadaisic in Osun at the tribunal stage until public outcry

seunmsg:


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?

Thats how you guys were defending APC fraud for 8yrs by saying critics hate Bubu. Now you've transfered same to Tinubu. You make criticism about anybody from APC in power while the country keeps going down!

garfield1:


How? Must you always oppose apc? I know you hate tinubu but try to be objective,it's nauseating

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

Abba won with more than 500,000votes

About 5,000 votes.

ValarDoharis:
Let us use BVAS and IREV but you supporters of unpopular candidates will not agree and we keep making extremely poor elections after 63yrs of independence!

We used bvas na.bvas is mandatory for only accreditation.even on the irev,tinubu won.tinubu is unpopular only in se ss

ValarDoharis:
Thats how you guys were defending APC fraud for 8yrs by saying critics hate Bubu. Now you've transfered same to Tinubu. You make criticism about anybody from APC in power while the country keeps going down!

Is your state government that has kept you in poverty APC?

ValarDoharis:
Thats how you guys were defending APC fraud for 8yrs by saying critics hate Bubu. Now you've transfered same to Tinubu. You make criticism about anybody from APC in power while the country keeps going down!

If obi eventually won,I will accept it but not atiku or any northerner.it is a southerner or nothing.but for now,let us gauge tinubu after 1 year.if by two years tinubu fails,I'll stop supporting him

garfield1:


If obi eventually won,I will accept it but not atiku or any northerner.it is a southerner or nothing.but for now,let us gauge tinubu after 1 year.if by two years tinubu fails,I'll stop supporting him

Obi only came to rob his Oga Abubakar Atiku off his votes.

No way a Peter Obi in the Federal Republic of Nigeria, can win any general election against a Hausa Fulani, or Yoruba on the same ballot.

They call Wole the master of technicalities, there you have it. Judgements based on technicalities but not on justice.

garfield1:


You need good defensive lawyers like wole,ikpeazu,fagbemi,olujimi,dodo etc in this kind of cases.if nnpp don't change their lawyers,they will lose totally.the best they can get now is a partial rerun.you can see that apc in nasarawa,Ogun abd pdp in Enugu used wole

garfield1:


Inec failed to cancel polling units affected by violence therefore they are at the mercy of apc and it's prayers. Apc cleverly accepted the results but called for the nullification of those invalid votes.
The court relied more on the documentary evidence tendered by apc to make it's judgment not just oral evidence

Lol. You keep exposing yourself. Can you quote the relevant section that allows a party to accept election result but turn round to ask for nullification of their opponent's votes.
How does that even make sense?
Just quote the section

garfield1:



Documentary evidence tendered by apc esp ec40G shows manifest irregularities.
Documentary evidence also tendered by inec shows massive irregularities.inec obviously decided to be neutral seeing that they couldn't defend the results.
Inec conceded themselves that thugs stuffed ballot boxes with ballot papers even when voting had concluded.i know you want Apc to lose but they got this one.worst case is a partial rerun in which they will still win.

Manifest irregularities should lead to total cancellation not selective one.
Besides, I'm not really after who wins at this stage
Rather, I'm after the form and substance of the case.

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.

The cancellation affected both parties.

Kukutente23:

Lol. You keep exposing yourself. Can you quote the relevant section that allows a party to accept election result but turn round to ask for nullification of their opponent's votes.
How does that even make sense?
Just quote the section

How will it make sense to you when you are not legally versed? Tell nnpp to challenge the votes of nnpp.until,it's a big L

garfield1:


You need good defensive lawyers like wole,ikpeazu,fagbemi,olujimi,dodo etc in this kind of cases.if nnpp don't change their lawyers,they will lose totally.the best they can get now is a partial rerun.you can see that apc in nasarawa,Ogun abd pdp in Enugu used wole

That's true.

Kukutente23:

Manifest irregularities should lead to total cancellation not selective one.
Besides, I'm not really after who wins at this stage
Rather, I'm after the form and substance of the case.

Apc choose to challenge the votes of nnpp alone.what exactly is your problem?

How come there're cases of overvoting if bvas was used? Why not irev?

garfield1:


We used bvas na.bvas is mandatory for only accreditation.even on the irev,tinubu won.tinubu is unpopular only in se ss

ValarDoharis:
How come there're cases of overvoting if bvas was used? Why not irev?

Bvas helps to spot overhoting na.it does not stop it but chevkmate it.most of you opposition guys do not understand this election stuff that's why you argue blindly

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?

Justice died on September 6th. RIP

When it is spotted, why did INEC still announce winner and rely on tribunal to start doing calculations if they like?

The new electoral act gives INEC 7days to review!!!

garfield1:


Bvas helps to spot overhoting na.it does not stop it but chevkmate it.most of you opposition guys do not understand this election stuff that's why you argue blindly

ValarDoharis:
When it is spotted, why did INEC still announce winner and rely on tribunal to start doing calculations if they like?

The new electoral act gives INEC 7days to review!!!

Apc begged them not to announce but nnpp threatened them