Fear of the masses and massive uprising

garfield1:


I am not.i said apc will likely lose Kano but win plateau

apc lost plateau as well

BluntCrazeMan:


The Supreme Court just took us 70years back with this judgement.

It now means that anybody can smuggle Unmarked/cloned Ballot Papers into the ballot boxes.

See..
It was required for the Presiding Officer to stamp and sign all the ballot papers issued AT THE POINT OF ISSUING THEM..

So,, why didn't the INEC Officials do what they were supposed to do??

It means that lots of papers were used to vote, and the PRESIDING OFFICER didn't issue them officially.

Now, the Supreme Court had made it Legal..

Over-voting with papers not officially issued by the Presiding Officer is now legal.

you're wrong inec agreed and submits that those papers belong to them and legally used for the election, so what's wrong with judgement?

sevenhundred:
you're wrong inec agreed and submits that those papers belong to them and legally used for the election, so what's wrong with judgement?

So, if electoral fraud is committed in conjunction with the INEC,, and the INEC came to the court to agree that they knew about the fraud,, then, it means that fraud would become legalized??

BluntCrazeMan:
So, if electoral fraud is committed in conjunction with the INEC,, and the INEC came to the court to agree that they knew about the fraud,, then, it means that fraud would become legalized??

according to the judgement apc did not prove that the paper does not belong to inec or faked they only depend on non signing of the paper which the courts say it's not mandatory.

sevenhundred:
according to the judgement apc did not prove that the paper does not belong to inec or faked they only depend on non signing of the paper which the courts say it's not mandatory.

The INEC Guidelines for the conduct of election states that:
“After a voter had been successfully accredited,, the Presiding Officer SHALL stamp, sign, and write the date of the election on the back of the ballot paper before giving it to the accredited voter.”
[Parag:19(f)(ii)]

This automatically means that unsigned/unstamped ballot-papers were not issued by the Presiding Officers at the Polling-units.



..
Now you just said that the court had declared that stamping and signing by the POs at the polling-units are no more mandatory again.??
(Something that was written in black-and-white inside the INEC Guidelines.??)

...

Go back and read the first comment of mine which you quoted earlier.

The court just rendered the INEC Guidelines totally useless once again.

BluntCrazeMan:


The INEC Guidelines for the conduct of election states that:
“After a voter had been successfully accredited,, the Presiding Officer SHALL stamp, sign, and write the date of the election on the back of the ballot paper before giving it to the accredited voter.”
[Parag:19(f)(ii)]

This automatically means that unsigned/unstamped ballot-papers were not issued by the Presiding Officers at the Polling-units...
Now you just said that the court had declared that stamping and signing by the POs at the polling-units are no more mandatory again.??

you can read further you will see where the law states that "if without signing the inec officials satisfied that the paper emanated from them, they should go on with the counting and the election remain valid" you check the electoral law.

sevenhundred:
you can read further you will see where the law states that "if without signing the inec officials satisfied that the paper emanated from them, they should go on with the counting and the election remain valid" you check the electoral law.

The security-measures which the INEC-Guidelines mandated for the Presiding Officers has no alternatives inside the Guidelines..

The stamping-and-signing on the back of the issued ballot paper is a manual security-measure which was to ensure that only the ballot-papers issued by the Presiding Officers were used.

Here, you're quoting section-63(3) of the Electoral-Act.
And the Electoral-Act in itself mentioned “Official-Mark”, and it didn't describe what it meant by “Official-Mark” on the ballot-papers.

The Act didn't mention “stamping-and-signing” of ballot-papers, neither did the Act meant for the “Official-Mark” to mean “stamping-and-signing of the ballot-papers by the PO”.

But from Section-42(2) of the Electoral-Act, the Act said something about Numbering the Ballot-papers serially.
And that's the only official mark the Electoral-Act envisaged here.

Meanwhile,, I have always had my reservations to that Section-63(3) of the Electoral-Act.
I don't really know the exact reasons why that sub-section was included in the Act.

For instance,, If it ever came to be that a particular ballot-paper torn-out from a booklet of ballot-papers does not have the prescribed official-mark (or serial number - as the case may be), it is the duty of the presiding-officer to put the ballot-paper aside and document inside his documents -- that the reason for putting the ballot paper aside was because it doesn't have “Official Mark”.



And now,, let's go back to my original argument,, just in case you might be missing it..

I am not trying to say that the Supreme Court was right or wrong.

What I am saying here is that: The stamping-and-signing of the ballot-papers by the presiding-officers at the exact point of issuing them at the polling-units (as prescribed by the INEC inside the INEC’s-Guidelines) had been rendered totally useless by this particular judgement.. And there is no need any longer for presiding officers to be stamping-and-signing the ballot-papers again during elections..


OR IS THERE ANY NEED AGAIN FOR SUCH TIME-WASTING ACTIVITY WHILE THE ELECTION IS GOING ON,, WHEREAS IT HAD BEEN CONSIDERED UNNECESSARY BY THE SUPREME COURT.??

BluntCrazeMan:
The security-measures which the INEC-Guidelines mandated for the Presiding Officers has no alternatives inside the Guidelines..

The stamping-and-signing on the back of the issued ballot paper is a manual security-measure which was to ensure that only the ballot-papers issued by the Presiding Officers were used.

Here, you're quoting section-63(3) of the Electoral-Act.
And the Electoral-Act in itself mentioned “Official-Mark”, and it didn't describe what it meant by “Official-Mark” on the ballot-papers.

The Act didn't mention “stamping-and-signing” of ballot-papers, neither did the Act meant for the “Official-Mark” to mean “stamping-and-signing of the ballot-papers by the PO”.

But from Section-42(2) of the Electoral-Act, the Act said something about Numbering the Ballot-papers serially.
And that's the only official mark the Electoral-Act envisaged here.

Meanwhile,, I have always had my reservations to that Section-63(3) of the Electoral-Act.
I don't really know the exact reasons why that sub-section was included in the Act.

For instance,, If it ever came to
And now,, let's go back to my original argument,, just in case you might be missing it..

I am not trying to say that the Supreme Court was right or wrong.

What I am saying here is that: The stamping-and-signing of the ballot-papers by the presiding-officers at the point of issuing them (as prescribed by the INEC inside the INEC’s-Guidelines) had been rendered totally useless by this particular judgement.. And there is no need for presiding officers to be doing that any longer during elections..

logically, you can not put all the hopes of electorates on one man decision, what if the official on his own refuses to sign the ballot papers, moreover, inec did not enlighten the people about ensuring that the ballots papers must be signed and stamped before voting. How many locals understand the importance of stamp and signing.

sevenhundred:
logically, you can not put all the hopes of electorates on one man decision, what if the official on his own refuses to sign the ballot papers, moreover, inec did not enlighten the people about ensuring that the ballots papers must be signed and stamped before voting. How many locals understand the importance of stamp and signing.

How many “THINGS” had the INEC enlightened you on before??

Even this their so called BVAS-Machines,, what and what had they enlightened you about it so far??

In fact...
Guy,, I want to know something from you now.

Are you saying that the stamping-and-signing of the ballot-papers is useless and unnecessary??
(Even when it was clearly stated inside their INEC’s-Guidelines??)


..
Is there any reason why a Presiding-officer should refuse to stamp-and-sing any VALID ballot-paper, even after they were well trained for such??
Give me just one or two of such reasons.

blaise26abj:



So can we say that the lower courts don’t know what they are doing or they are fantastically corrupt ? Because how can tribunal and Appeal courts say one thing and Supreme Court says another . Is the law so vague that it will take 3 levels of court to find justice ? It is so sad where we are as a country

those lower court have something to hide,especially the appeal courts, imagine sayings ABBA is not even a member of NNPP when the supreme court has several times makes a final decision on issues of membership of a party.

BluntCrazeMan:


How many “THINGS” had the INEC enlightened you on before??

Even this their so called BVAS-Machines,, what and what had they enlightened you about it so far??

In fact...
Guy,, I want to know something from you now.

Are you saying that the stamping-and-signing of the ballot-papers is useless and unnecessary??
(Even when it was clearly stated inside their INEC’s-Guidelines??)


..
Is there any reason why a Presiding-officer should refuse to sing??
Give me just one or two of such reasons.

if a presiding officers is corrupt or have a political interest he may knowingly and intentionally not sign or sometimes due crowd and tensions he might forget to sign some of the papers, therefore signing at the polling booth is of no use, aferrall there are others means to verify the authenticity of the papers.

sevenhundred:
if a presiding officer is corrupt or have a political interest he may knowingly and intentionally not sign or sometimes due to crowd and tensions he might forget to sign some of the papers , therefore signing at the polling booth is of no use, after-all there are others means to verify the authenticity of the papers.

Crowd and Tensions??
Heheheeheheheehehehehehe..

I think we are done here.
You've finally arrived at my points.




..
The stamping-and-signing of ballot-papers by the presiding-officers at the polling-units would easily lead to crowd and tensions.. and therefore, it is of no use.

(The people can now collude with the Presiding Officers at the polling-units, and the Presiding-officers would allow them to tear-out as many unstamped-and-unsigned ballot-papers as possible from the ballot-papers booklets, and thumb-print them, and then pour in those unstamped-and-unsigned thumb-printed ballot-papers into the ballot-boxes right there at the polling-units in front of the presiding-officers.. After-all, there are fake-BVAS-machines-methods and Fake-IREV-methods for one to verify the Over-voting which occured at the polling-units.)

sevenhundred:
those lower court have something to hide,especially the appeal courts, imagine sayings ABBA is not even a member of NNPP when the supreme court has several times makes a final decision on issues of membership of a party.

EXACTLY !!!