Spy360:

Justice died on September 6th. RIP

Lol

So you're absorbing INEC in all the electoral fraud of 2023?

garfield1:


Apc begged them not to announce but nnpp threatened them

ValarDoharis:
So you're absorbing INEC in all the electoral fraud of 2023?

No.90% of the fraud is from politicians as inec were helpless.in any case,2023 election was the best since 199)

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.

The bolded ref.

You will agree with me that a ballot paper itself can be very original & yet its vote not valid. The ballot paper might have been original & even for the polling unit & yet the vote casted on it not valid.. How? Thugs can come, hijack clean/unused ballot papers, steal the ballot boxes, thumbprint the snatched ballot papers, bring them back & get counted.. Now it is easy for the Petitioners to prove such irregularities since the resultant clear over voting due to BVAS accreditation which will be lower to the vote cast. Any ballot not signed by the Presiding Officer will be definitely invalid.. if 166k of them go to a particular party, then. it is easy to prove

garfield1:


Lol

Spy360:

But I told you na that you guys don't have a case.cant you see how apc prosecuted Kano polls?
Forgery is a criminal case and in electoral matters,it is almost impossible to prove.see what happened in enugu.it must be 100%

2023 was the worst considering the investment on INEC!

garfield1:


No.90% of the fraud is from politicians as inec were helpless.in any case,2023 election was the best since 199)

ValarDoharis:
2023 was the worst considering the investment on INEC!

Then you are not rating it well.you rate based on opposition victories,incidences of righing,violence,suppression,cancelled votes,technological deployment,ruling party victory,under age voting.by the way,we have always budgeted huge money for inec.bvas is primarily for accreditation not transmission

I rate solely based on how poorly conducted the elections were and the lack of transparency that went with them.

They were the mist litugated in Nigeria history

garfield1:


Then you are not rating it well.you rate based on opposition victories,incidences of righing,violence,suppression,cancelled votes,technological deployment,ruling party victory,under age voting.by the way,we have always budgeted huge money for inec.bvas is primarily for accreditation not transmission

Kukutente23:

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?

That is why I said some of these issues earlier canvassed will have been looked away by other tribunals.

I believe after reading the judgement, the tribunal pushed the burden of proof too much on the respondents which shouldn't be so. Even though, the respondents were lax in their defence.

I very well agree to the bolded. The doublespeak of the tribunal to uphold the preliminy objections of membership of a political party only to delve into the merits and now say the Candidate's qualifications to contest is unlawful is strange.

yemex04:








The bolded ref.

You will agree with me that a ballot paper itself can be very original & yet its vote not valid. The ballot paper might have been original & even for the polling unit & yet the vote casted on it not valid.. How? Thugs can come, hijack clean/unused ballot papers, steal the ballot boxes, thumbprint the snatched ballot papers, bring them back & get counted.. Now it is easy for the Petitioners to prove such irregularities since the resultant clear over voting due to BVAS accreditation which will be lower to the vote cast. Any ballot not signed by the Presiding Officer will be definitely invalid.. if 166k of them go to a particular party, then. it is easy to prove

First of all, those places were issues of invalid ballot were raised did not have over voting issues.
Secondly, if ballot boxes are snatched, the elections in the affected PU is automatically cancelled so you're scenario does not arise.
The grounds for invalidating a validly vote by ballot paper is clear and not being signed is not part of it.

garfield1:


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

Where is it written in the EA that you challenge only the votes of your opponent?
Even in the Adeleke vs Oyetola case, votes were deducted from both parties.
But that's not my main point. In a case of stuffing ballot boxes which APC is alleging, the right thing is to cancel the PU.
Secondly, the tribunal's claim relied me on s71 which was actually referring to result forms and not ballot papers.
That of ballot papers is taken care of in s63 as I've shown and it gives leeway for unsigned ballot to be accepted.

garfield1:


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

You're not legally versed either. You won't claim s71 referred to ballot papers if you were.

Kukutente23:

Where is it written in the EA that you challenge only the votes of your opponent?
Even in the Adeleke vs Oyetola case, votes were deducted from both parties.
But that's not my main point. In a case of stuffing ballot boxes which APC is alleging, the right thing is to cancel the PU.
Secondly, the tribunal's claim relied me on s71 which was actually referring to result forms and not ballot papers.
That of ballot papers is taken care of in s63 as I've shown and it gives leeway for unsigned ballot to be accepted.

It is now left for the respondents to prove that subsection 2 was followed

ValarDoharis:
I rate solely based on how poorly conducted the elections were and the lack of transparency that went with them.

They were the mist litugated in Nigeria history

It was well conducted.even lp fans agreed that it was well conducted except for transmission.regarding that transmission,a lot of areas in Nigeria has poor network

Kukutente23:

First of all, those places were issues of invalid ballot were raised did not have over voting issues.
Secondly, if ballot boxes are snatched, the elections in the affected PU is automatically cancelled so you're scenario does not arise.
The grounds for invalidating a validly vote by ballot paper is clear and not being signed is not part of it.

So what are the grounds for invalidating the votes

Some people are crying more than the bereaved. Especially the headless mob

fergie001:

That is why I said some of these issues earlier canvassed will have been looked away by other tribunals.

I believe after reading the judgement, the tribunal pushed the burden of proof too much on the respondents which shouldn't be so. Even though, the respondents were lax in their defence.

I very well agree to the bolded. The doublespeak of the tribunal to uphold the preliminy objections of membership of a political party only to delve into the merits and now say the Candidate's qualifications to contest is unlawful is strange.

Yes,the tribunal were a bit hard on the respondents but you will agree that the petitioners discharged the burden of proof based on probabilities and preponderances of evidences. from the proceedings and judgment,documentary evidence was heavily in apc favour and EA 2022 clearly stated that oral evidence isn't necessary if documents prove manifest infractions.inec defence even helped apc.

On membership,the tribunal agreed that while membership and sponsorship is internal,they quoted a recent ruling by kekete ekun which says there's a narrow pathway for petitioners to challenge membership based on section 285(13) and 84(14). That's a candidate must have participated in all stages of the election process

KillahPriest:
how you guys support ridiculousness is very baffling

Get out of my mention clown

garfield1:


But I told you na that you guys don't have a case.cant you see how apc prosecuted Kano polls?
Forgery is a criminal case and in electoral matters,it is almost impossible to prove.see what happened in enugu.it must be 100%

What do you need to prove forgery?

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.

OP raised a point you completely ignored. According to his post, a presiding officer is allowed to count an unsigned ballot paper if he is convinced that the ballot paper was from the same booklet he/she was given.

The question is, did the unsigned ballot papers have different serial numbers from the signed ones used at the polling units?

garfield1:

I will react to this very expressly later.

On membership,the tribunal agreed that while membership and sponsorship is internal,they quoted a recent ruling by kekete ekun which says there's a narrow pathway for petitioners to challenge membership based on section 285(13) and 84(14). That's a candidate must have participated in all stages of the election process

The learned Judge misapprehended that aspect of the suit.

The issue in contention is Enang v. Asuquo, an intra-party matter.
“Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right when they held that the grant of a waiver to a member of the party is a pure issue that relates to the internal affairs of the 2nd respondent for which the Court is not expected to meddle into and that the 2nd respondent’s refusal to challenge the authenticity of the waiver gave validity to it?”

I will reproduce:
Section 84(14) of the EA 2022:
Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or rules of a political party, an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of this Act and the guidelines of a political party have not been complied with in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election, may apply to the Federal High Court for redress.

This suit as decided by Kekere-Ekun is an intra-party matter as earlier highlighted.

It is not new as can be gleaned from Eze v. PDP used figuratively as limited jurisdiction


In Adebutu & PDP v. Jimi Adebisi Lawal

The SC addressed the proviso where the narrow confines can come in:

"To take advantage of the provisions above, a Plaintiff must show that he is an aspirant who participated in the primary election sought to be challenged, and he must establish that his grievance falls within the narrow provisions of Section 285(14) of the Constitution and Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act. The twin conditions must be satisfied, for the action to be justiciable." (per I M M Saulawa JSC)

Been a jurisdictional matter, it can be raised at anytime and I believe it will be put down.

garfield1:


So what are the grounds for invalidating the votes

Check s52. Thumbprinting across line or two parties at once invalidates a ballot paper.
Like i said, it would have been ridiculous for the EA to declare a ballot invalid simply because the EA refused to sign when there are other means of identifying a genuine ballot paper, and secondly, overcrowded areas can have those kinds of issues. That's why s63(2) makes provision for the returning officer to identify the ballot paper as genuine or not.
The claim that INEC should have called the returning officers to confirm the validity of those ballots is needles because they never reported over voting or violence in those PUs so it should be assumed that the elections were free and fair there.

garfield1:


It is now left for the respondents to prove that subsection 2 was followed

As I've said and the SC agreed in the Imo case, you don't prove that the EA was followed. It is assumed that the EA was followed until the other party can show that it wasn't so. The only way to show infraction against EA in this case by petitioner is to show the returning officer never accepted those ballot papers, or that they were fake. They did none of the above and left the tribunal to decide what to do with the ballot papers which they also took. I find that ridiculous.
Our judges need to show more circumspection in terms of these cases.
I'll expect Appeal to do the needful

JAMO84:
I am a useless fowl

you're right sir

socialmediaman:


OP raised a point you completely ignored. According to his post, a presiding officer is allowed to account an unsigned ballot paper if he was convinced that the ballot paper was from the same booklet he/she was given.

The question is, did the unsigned ballot papers have different serial numbers from the signed ones used at the polling units?

And you think the NNPP lawyers didn't bring that up as a defense? I told you the ballots were allien to INEC, they couldn't justify it in court. You cannot be better than the many SANs that defended NNPP and INEC.

Kukutente23:

Check s52. Thumbprinting across line or two parties at once invalidates a ballot paper.
Like i said, it would have been ridiculous for the EA to declare a ballot invalid simply because the EA refused to sign when there are other means of identifying a genuine ballot paper, and secondly, overcrowded areas can have those kinds of issues. That's why s63(2) makes provision for the returning officer to identify the ballot paper as genuine or not.
The claim that INEC should have called the returning officers to confirm the validity of those ballots is needles because they never reported over voting or violence in those PUs so it should be assumed that the elections were free and fair there.

No.there is a difference between invalid votes and invalid ballot papers.section 52 is about invalid votes while 63 is invalid ballot papers.the inec returning officers already reported ballot stuffing and overvoting in form ec40G hence the deduction from NNPP since they were almost entirely nnpp votes

Kukutente23:

As I've said and the SC agreed in the Imo case, you don't prove that the EA was followed. It is assumed that the EA was followed until the other party can show that it wasn't so. The only way to show infraction against EA in this case by petitioner is to show the returning officer never accepted those ballot papers, or that they were fake. They did none of the above and left the tribunal to decide what to do with the ballot papers which they also took. I find that ridiculous.
Our judges need to show more circumspection in terms of these cases.
I'll expect Appeal to do the needful

63 is clear.petitioners show part A, respondents show part B.the standard of proof is on probabilities and preponderances.according to the judgment,results forms were not even signed by presiding officers

garfield1:


63 is clear.petitioners show part A, respondents show part B.the standard of proof is on probabilities and preponderances.according to the judgment,results forms were not even signed by presiding officers

Where is that in the judgement
I've read the judgement and there's nothing like that there

garfield1:


No.there is a difference between invalid votes and invalid ballot papers.section 52 is about invalid votes while 63 is invalid ballot papers.the inec returning officers already reported ballot stuffing and overvoting in form ec40G hence the deduction from NNPP since they were almost entirely nnpp votes

The ec40G detailing overvoting has nothing to do with the unsigned ballots
You keep mixing things up
Overvoting should lead to cancellation of results not sifting through. It's in the electoral act. There's nowhere in the Act where the tribunal is empowered to sift votes and choose which to cancel and which to not.
If they are from same polling unit affected by the ec40G report, the entire result is to be cancelled

Kukutente23:

The ec40G detailing overvoting has nothing to do with the unsigned ballots
You keep mixing things up
Overvoting should lead to cancellation of results not sifting through. It's in the electoral act. There's nowhere in the Act where the tribunal is empowered to sift votes and choose which to cancel and which to not.
If they are from same polling unit affected by the ec40G report, the entire result is to be cancelled

They have cancelled the votes and deducted them accordingly which affects nnpp majorly.
Apc proved that ballots had no inec marks,let inec explain why they counted ballots without marks. an unchallenged evidence is deemed true

garfield1:



They have cancelled the votes and deducted them accordingly which affects nnpp majorly.
Apc proved that ballots had no inec marks,let inec explain why they counted ballots without marks. an unchallenged evidence is deemed true

And where in the EA does it invalidate unmarked ballots?
Mind you, unmarked can mean many things not necessarily the signature of the presiding officer. It can be the inec seal, the watermarks or even the serial number. EA never expressly stated that it must be signed. Only the result forms must be signed. The EA never gave such requirements for ballot paper