₦airaland Forum

aswani:
Nor mind am ó, I nor dey follow am go any oda thread, na for dis wan we go kpai put.

You followed after-all..

And I still didn't give you much audience thete.

udemzyudex:
This was deliberately done, when will it be challenged and how long will it take to be rectified.
The election time table is out already.


Na wa ooo.

Court cases don't take forever..

If the legislators fail to do what they have to do,, then the courts would be the next best option.

Globad:
I don’t know why all this is coming after signing the bill into law and not before or during the first, second and third readings of the bill

What exactly are you talking about?

All the protests that were happening all these while when they were delaying the bill, you didn't see it.
Even the protests that were happening at the time they were debating on the bill, you didn't see it.??
(You were busy saying all sorts of things about those protests)

..

And now, just because I created a thread, you are still giving yourself heart-ache??

What if another protest erupts with respect to the new Electoral Act 2026, what then would you be saying?

Judolisco:
It will only get better from here..... We have definitely improved... We can't perfect everything in a day.... God bless Goodluck Jonathan he changed d game and we have improved on it

Exactly.!!

The new Electoral Act 2026 is a very huge improvement on the Electoral Act 2022..

And I truly appreciate that.

ravensckar:
No be me lose o, because I collected my money to the last kobo. It's the mobilization money, settlement and 10% on every payment that got me.

It's the people around me that lost because I stopped lending them money. Me wey dey run "charitable micro-finance bank" for all those around me. I closed the bank immediately and moved on.

Funny enough, I was doing it as a payback for all the favours I received during my hustling days. I used to have 2 stand-by people that were always there for me (in terms of borrowing) and I never for once defaulted. When I now started making money, I felt I should do the same for others as a way of supporting them. Little did I know that not everyone is as humane as me. People showed me pepper and I learnt the hard way.

Now, no matter how much I have sitting idly in my account, it's only my wife that I lend it to as a way of strengthening her business and she never fails to pay back with interest (knacking).

I like how you took the whole thing.


Your wife is a good wife for even paying you back with “money” first,, and not thinking that nacking alone is the payback mode for you.

ElevationD:
Definitely it needs to be challenged. Our legislators never gorge right way. They always leave loopholes for exploitation.

Let’s see Obi and other serious people challenge it in the courts and the courts give the interpretation.

Let's see what comes out of the court interpretations..

Definitely, they would interprete the questions in such a way to favour the crooked politicians.

But it is good they go for interpretations, so that we know exactly what the law is saying ahead of time -- and not for us to reach to the middle of the game and start to feel that the rules changed.

Image123:
......Was it an angel that announced that Obi won in Lagos or Anambra in 2023?.......

Okkk..

I think I get it now.

ravensckar:
Experience they say is the best teacher. This write-up and points made by the OP are very valid points. Regrettably, I learnt it myself at the station.

I had arrested someone for owing me. On getting to the station, the Police men pulled me aside and broke the news to me. They even advised me to accept whatever terms of settlement that the person proposes. Fear catch me.

That was after paying heavily for mobilization and settling all the who is whos. Las las, as the person was paying me, the Police people were deducting 10% from every payment. Body bite me.

After that day, I made it my life's mission to never borrow anyone huge sum of money. No matter the story, na small thing I go just give you. If you pay back, fine. If you don't, your problem.

Chaaiii..

This story now is so touching.

So, na you wey come dey for loss finally finally?

MamaFryo:
......Once you are out

File a suit against the person you owe and the Police Officer for breach of your fundamental human right and illegal arrest with unlawful detention

In the suit, demand for damages of 50 Million Naira.....

..

I am still waiting to see anyone who would ask “Is this in any Nigerian Court??”


..

(Whenever I talk about the electoral laws,, lots of people would be asking me “Is this in any Nigerian Court??”)

I always wonder.

Are police supposed to be arresting people for owing other people money in the first.??

TheBizGenius:
Wow!! Now, I concentrate.

And I agree.

Now that we have canceled out people with just opinions, we now talk about the integrity or exposure of the experts themselves.
(Note that we already accept their credibility as competent in the field.)

Integrity? The expert may outrightly bend the truth.

Exposure? The expert may be limited in his knowledge base.
And I agree.

But for exposure cases, new data to make him more informed can come from non-experts while new knowledge must be from more exposed experts.

Fpr example, as a mechanical engineer, I might believe that a car can't run on 3 tyres. It can.

It might only take a Keke rider to give me this new data but the mechanics of the workings will have to be through a more advanced engineer than I am.

I am still awed by the simplicity of your comment. That's the hallmark of a brilliant person.

You're right there though.

yemre:
Oga, did you follow the comments before you quoted me? Someone mentioned Peter Obi and I responded and here you are telling me to stick to the topic! Remove your sunshade na.

Okkk

aswani:
My last one on this, so if Peter Obí wins,.....

You're still mentioning Peter Obi blah blah blah...

If Peter Obi rigs and wins,, then he should be dragged to court mercilessly,, and that stolen mandate of his be stripped-off of him..

He doesn't deserve to win if he thinks that he has to rig..

..

..

WITH THIS SAID,, I HAVE TO REMIND YOU AGAIN THAT:... I DON'T CARE WHO WINS.!!

All I care for are good transparent elections.

TheBizGenius:
Nope. I don't like changing goalposts. I listen to experts who are experienced in their respective fields.

If you're not an expert in a topic, all you're sharing are just your opinions and you should allow me share mine too.

I am an engineer, business consultant, investor and a pastor with a dose of legal background too. If we discuss football, that man city would win the league, all I would be saying are my hopes, preferences and opinions.

#i hope arsenal team players all have season ending injuries#

Ok.

Even when experts and professionals say the things that could be regarded as “expert opinions”, it might still not be the absolute truth.

It might still be their own personal opinions -- shaped by their confined experiences under some certain conditions -- of which those opinions might not be true when subjected to other conditions which the expert has not yet experienced.

Wallade:
Hmmm.

....You don't have to present a candidate if you are not satisfied with the Electoral Act, as it is today.

You guys said that the Electoral Act 2022 is very okay, that it doesn't need to be amended.

Yet it got amended.
That's a very good one.

But it had not been done properly.

You can continue to rant about me saying it.

But that is just what it is.

aswani:
No I am not saying that. You haven't presented yout arguments in a choherent manner, in my own opinion, and as an Obidient, you will find fault in anything INEC do anyway.

THE TOPIC IS NOT ABOUT INEC..
SO, STOP DIGRESSING..

Take the last elections, INEC declared the winner as soon as they collated the results, you claimed they changed figures and did it while everyone was sleeping. If they has waited till 9am to declare it, you would no doubt have said they manipulated it all morning.

We are talking about the necessary amendments which are required in the new Electoral Act 2026.
Leave those rumours in the past. Or maybe you should go to where I said such a thing and quote me there.

We know the playbook of "damned if they do, damned if they don't", you people suppose rest.

Nutin do una anyway.

Like I said, I am more interested in a good Electoral Act which serves the people and the votes they casted.
Once it comes into play, let anybody win.
I am not really interested in who wins.

TheBizGenius:
Lol.

I actually don't.

But, I strongly dislike people who share their personal opinions as truths.

Unless you are an expert, then you would have a basis for what you say.

Nice one..

So, what are those personal opinions shared by someone which the person is trying of portray as truths.??

(Meanwhile, bear in mind that some truths are actually truths -- but that-is; only when viewed within some limited perspectives)

yemre:
😂😂😂 Are you dragging him because he mentioned Peter Obi or because it would be said that the elections were rigged if another person wins other than Peter Obi?

The post is not about Peter Obi.
The post is about the Electoral Act 2026.

STICK TO THE TOPIC, OGA..!!

gabbytabby:
It is the responsibility of the legislative to legislate.

So why this wayo Allah na questions ba.

This reminds me of the Barrister who went to fight for them to stop the monthly sanitation day in Lagos.

Maturity requires that one things beyond what can be done to what one hopes to achieve by pursuing that line of action and whether it is expedient to do so.

Some like to steer up trouble for trouble sake.

I for tell you that your comment is a bit off-point..

But on a second thought,, I would just tell you “OK”..

Your comment is still off-point though..
But then,, “OKKK”.

TheBizGenius:
Please include me in that discuss. I beg of you.

#smiling sheepishly#

You go like gossiping well well ooo

Wallade:
So what is your point?

Do we have to urgently review the Electoral Act again?

Can't you and your parties challenge the Electoral Act in court, like Peter Obi, so we can focus on the upcoming electioneering.

Ok..

At least, you clearly understood that the Electoral Act 2026 is already faulty - and needs a slight maintenance.

aswani:
I nor tok am for di oda thread say na wetin be ya motivation be dis?

Wait oo..

Are you saying that:... “out of all the numerous offices that are available to be contested and to be won through all the numerous elections to be conducted by the INEC.. -- and since it happens that the rules for conducting all the elections is solely based the “Faulty” Electoral Act 2026 -- then,, anybody who calls out the “Faulty” Electoral Act 2026 is “straight-away” talking about Peter Obi.??

So, nobody can wake up one day and speak-up about anything that he thinks is not going well,, just because some people would summarily conclude that the person is saying those things just because of the person is supporting Peter Obi.??

What type of stereotyping is this one again naa?

fitinwell:
Peter Obi , you don't Stand a Chance in 2027 presidential election...

Your Grounded membership are on Twitter and social media..

And Social media Election doesn't count.

Peter Obi you too workout the permutations and see for yourself..

In reality, nobody is supposed to be responding to this kind of comments any longer this time around..

Winning the mind of the people is not a problem.

Actually winning the votes is not a problem too..

The real problem is “protecting the winning” from being stolen.

aswani:
“....We get it though, as an Obidient, unless Peter Obi wins, the elections were rigged by APC in cahoots with INEC.......”

☝🏽☝🏽👆🏽👆🏽

This thing you wrote up here is a total off-point.!!

If you want me and you to drag ourselves very well, just let me know.
I will find a moribund thread and take you there...
Then we will argue whatever you want there.

Here below is a related topic....

Peter Obi Vows To Challenge The Electoral Act In Court.
https://www.nairaland.com/8631446/peter-obi-vows-challenge-electoral#138699487

OBI VOWS TO CHALLENGE ELECTORAL ACT IN COURT, RAISES CONCERNS OVER 2027 POLL

Presidential hopeful and former Anambra State governor, Mr. Peter Obi, has said he will challenge the recently passed 2026 Electoral Act in court, expressing concerns that some of its provisions could affect the conduct of the 2027 general elections.

Obi spoke in Awka during the flag-off of the membership mobilisation, registration and revalidation exercise of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) in Anambra State.

The former Labour Party presidential candidate said he believed certain aspects of the law could influence the electoral process and indicated that legal action would be taken to seek judicial interpretation.

Obi also urged the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to remain neutral in the conduct of elections and avoid involvement in the internal affairs of political parties.

“A referee does not determine the rules, choices or line-up of players in teams or clubs,” he said, calling on the electoral body to focus on its constitutional role of conducting credible elections.

He encouraged ADC members and supporters across the state to register at their respective wards and mobilise others to join the party.

Chairman of the occasion, Senator Ndii Obi, said the ADC would provide a platform where members could participate freely in the party’s activities.

He urged party supporters in the state to work together to strengthen the party ahead of future elections.

Also speaking, the Chairman of the ADC Registration Committee in Anambra State, Hon. Ben Nwosu, described the exercise as part of efforts to strengthen the party’s grassroots presence.

Nwosu said the first batch of membership cards would be distributed across the 21 local government areas of the state.

The National Organising Secretary of the party, Chinedu Idigo, explained that registration would be conducted both online and manually, advising prospective members to complete the online process before collecting their membership cards at designated centres.

He added that the party plans to adopt a direct primary system for the selection of candidates.

In his remarks, the ADC candidate in the November 8, 2025 Anambra governorship election, John Nwosu, described the event as an important step in strengthening the party’s political structure.

Also speaking, the Senator representing Anambra Central, Senator Victor Umeh, described the gathering as significant and reiterated support for Obi’s political ambitions.

Source:
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2026/03/obi-vows-to-challenge-electoral-act-in-court-raises-concerns-over-2027-poll

helinues:
Please don't make racist and tribalistic comments on this thread

EXACTLY.!!

I HOPE WE ALL ENGAGE INTELLIGENTLY AND OBJECTIVELY ON THIS THREAD..

Here are some of the salient points and comments and questions about the ambiguities and contradictions which are noticed inside the newly enacted “Electoral Act 2026”


Please, download the Electoral Act 2026 using the link below:
https://placng.org/i/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/ElectoralAct2026.pdf

This is going to be a long thread, but I promise you that it is going to be very interesting, very enlightening, and VERY EYE-OPENING.!!

SO,, LET'S GO.!!


Section: 25(2)(g)
Question:
In this sub-section, the Electoral Act says: “The returning officer shall announce the result and declare the winner of the election at - the State Collation Center in the case of a Presidential election...”
So, is this sub-section implying that the “State Collation Officer” in a “Presidential Election” can actually announce and declare the WINNER of the Presidential Election at the State Collation Level.??


Section: 29(5)
Comment-1:
This sub-section is not fair to the candidates from other parties -- who cannot even question the authenticity of the documents that are submitted by a candidate of any particular party -- especially when ALL the supposed aspirants in the candidate’s party have chosen not to contest the authenticity of the candidate’s documents due to their supposed Loyalty to their Party, and for the purpose of the success of their Party.

(The Nigerian Law-Makers should explain why they left that sub-section so narrow and so tight.)


Section: 29(5) -- (continued)
Comment-2:
This sub-section is actually a constitutional matter (see also the Section: 85 of the Electoral Act).

Thus, any of the other contesting parties can use the supremacy of the constitution over that particular Section: 29(5) of the Electoral Act -- adding the fact that the co-contesting parties are also interested parties in the matter. The other contesting parties can establish their "locus-standi" in the case, and then drag the candidate of the particular party to court on constitutional grounds, even though they are not members of the party, and that they did not contest in the primaries with the candidate.

This particular court process should be done clearly before the conduct of the election -- That-is, after the INEC had just finished publishing the documents of the candidates of the various parties.
This is because, the matter is supposed to be a pre-election matter -- and it also means that it should not be brought up in the Election Petition Tribunal.


Section: 29(5) -- (continued)
Comment-3:
“Forgery” is totally different from “Perjury” -- (that is, “telling lies on oath”) -- which is a criminal case.

For criminal cases, the police would first investigate the matter, and then drag the matter to court before trial can commence against the person.
In such a case, persons that are protected by immunity clauses cannot be dragged to court, because the case is a criminal case.

But in the case of “forgery and false documents” which is a constitutional matter in this case it does not require the police to be the ones to take the matter to court.
An interested party can take the matter to court.

And again, persons who are protected by immunity clauses are not shielded from being sued to court when the case is a clear constitutional matter.


Section: 29(5) -- (continued).
Question:
The question here now is -- “According to the Act, does it mean that it is ONLY an aspirant who co-participated in the primaries of the political party with the candidate who won the primaries can question the authenticity of the DOCUMENTS which were submitted by the candidate who won??”

“Does that also mean that not even the INEC can question the authenticity of such documents -- even when the forgery is very bare and obvious?”

What then is the need for the “Public Disclosure” of the documents of the candidate in Section:29(3), when it is of no use to the public?


Section: 29(7)
Question:
This sub-section somehow already assumed that the candidate and the party that was disqualified in sub-section: (6) actually “WON” the election which had already been held before the courts passed their final judgement.
So, what if a situation occurred where the candidate and party that was disqualified in sub-section: (6) DID NOT WIN the election, & judgement was later passed; would the order for INEC to conduct a fresh election still hold.?
Or would it be presumed that the judgement had been overtaken by events?


Section: 47(2)
Question:
Why is it that the “Number of Accredited Voters” that were automatically captured and stored inside the “Bimodal Voter Accreditation System or any other technological device” were not also mandated to be electronically transmitted to the IREV Portal??

(This question became necessary since the sub-Section: 60(3) of the Electoral Act mandated that the “results” were to be electronically transmitted to the IREV Portal).

So, why were the “Number of Accredited Voters” Not also mandated to be electronically transmitted too?


Section: 50(2)
Question:
If Section:60(3) has already specified the method of transmitting the results, why would this section still come back again to mention that “..transmission of results under this Act shall be in accordance with the procedure determined by the Commission.”?


Section: 60(3)
Comment-1:
It is very necessary for us to note that the term “Form EC8A” was not explained or described in the Electoral Act to mean the “Polling Unit Result Sheet” in any way.

Even though the Electoral Act mentioned that the “Form EC8A” contains some form of results which can be used for collation, the Act didn't describe the “Form EC8A” to be the “Result Sheet at the Polling Units”.
The term “Form EC8A” in the Act could mean anything, since it is not sufficiently described. It could mean a “Poster-Form” on which the Results could be written upon, and be pasted on the wall at the venue of voting - and can also be used as the primary source of data for collation and declaration of results.

This also means that, if the INEC changes the name or the code which they currently used to represent the Polling-Unit Result Sheets -- from “Form EC8A” to a new name or code -- in all future elections; then, that would render the term “Form EC8A” totally useless inside the Electoral Act, since it would become a totally non-existent entity -- both inside the Electoral Act 2026 and in everywhere else -- owing to the fact that it was not fully described in the Act -- only the technical name “Form EC8A” and its partial functions were given in the Act.


Section: 60(3) -- (continued)
Comment-2:
The term “IREV Portal”, even though it was not directly defined, was given a fully implied meaning when the Act stipulated that “the Electronically Transmitted Results would be transmitted to the IREV Portal”.

From the implied meaning, the “IREV Portal” is definitely supposed to mean an electronic “web portal” where the results from the polling units are electronically transmitted to.


Section: 60(3) -- (continued)
Question-1:
The law clearly stipulates that “Communication Failure” is the ONLY Reason why a transmitted result cannot be seen immediately on the IREV Portal.

Thus, the question here is: “what then happens if INEC brings up some other man-made or third-party excuses for the delay in seeing the results appearing on the IREV Portal??
For instance, some excuses such as “two-factor authentication by a Ward-Officer”, “GLITCHES”, Unforeseen and unplanned delays of the transmitted results to appear on the IREV Portal.
What is supposed to happen when such situations arise?”


Section: 60(3) -- (continued)
Question-2:
If the “electronic transmission of the result” fails as a result of some other unforseen or deliberate mistakes or errors that were made by the staff of INEC (and were not caused by “Communication Failure” -- which could be clearly regarded as a situation beyond the control of INEC) what should be done?


Section: 60(3) -- (continued)
Question-3:
At what point would it be deemed fit for it to be accepted that the “electronic transmission of the result has failed as a result of communication failure, and that it has become impossible to transmit the result”?

(This question above simply means that the Presiding Officer must have tried the transmission at-least ONCE, and it did not show on the IREV Portal. The presiding officer cannot just announce that there is no network and then refuse to do the transmission -- if he does that, then he is clearly going against the Electoral Act 2026).


Section: 60(5)
Comment:
The word “transmit” (as defined or explained in Section:155) could either be done MANUALLY or ELECTRONICALLY.

Therefore, wherever and whenever the term “Electronic Transmission” is intended, the full phrase of “Electronic Transmission” must be clearly written.
Otherwise, the lone word “transmission” would easily be assumed to mean “MANUAL TRANSMISSION”.


Section: 60(5) -- (continued)
Comment-2:
The Act did not specify that the presiding officer AT THE POLLING UNIT would give copies of the Result-Sheets to the Police Officer & the Polling Agents that are present.


Section: 62(1)
Question:
If according to Section:60(5) of the Electoral Act, that the results had already been “Transmitted to the next level of collation”, (which could already be regarded as “Manual Transmission”), why then is the Electoral Act repeating the exact same procedures again in Section:62(1) using another rephrased language.??

(Unless (perhaps) the Section:60(5) was intended to mean “Electronic Transmission”, and not just “Transmission” (or “Manual Transmission”), then it means that Section:62(1) is actually different from Section:60(5).)

But as of now,, Section:62(1) is just a rephrasing of Section:60(5).


Section: 62(3)
Comment:
Even though the Electoral Act stated that the electronic database should be updated “on a continuous basis”, there is need for the Act to state how soon -- after any concluded election -- that the results of the election would be updated in the database -- such that anybody who is interested in getting a copy of the results can wait until such timelines have elapsed, and then, the person would apply to get the electronic copy of such results that were related to the concluded election -- which were uploaded and stored on the electronic database -- and get the electronic copy.


Section: 62(3) -- (continued)
Question:
Are there no penalties for INEC if there are concluded elections whose results are not stored on the electronic database -- even after one month had passed after that election was concluded, but the database was not updated on the electronic database yet?


Section: 62(4)(b)
Question:
The wrong referencing of “Section:60(4)” inside Section:62(4)(b) is very confusing. It is either that the clause referred to Section:60(3) or to Section:60(5).
So, which one exactly is supposed to be referenced.??
Why did the Act “Section:60(4)” at all - in the first place??


Section: 68
Question:
How soon after the conclusion of the election is the INEC required to publish the final summary of the results of the concluded election on their website?

And what would be the penalty if the INEC failed to publish the final results within such timelines?


Section: 71(1)
Question:
Why is it that the duplicate copies of “..the collated result which were completed at the ward, local government, state and national levels of collation..” were to be given to the police officers and the polling agents; but these same collated results were not mandated by the Electoral Act to be electronically transmitted to the IREV Portal as well -- just as was the case with the polling unit results in section:60(3)?

(The collated results are supposed to be electronically transmitted to the IREV Portal too).


Section: 137(3)(a)&(b).
Question:
This section of the Act says that where a petitioner complains about the conduct of an electoral officer, a presiding officer, returning officer, IT SHALL NOT BE NECESSARY TO JOIN SUCH OFFICERS, NOTWITHSTANDING THE NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT but rather, the commission shall be made a respondent, and be DEEMED TO BE DEFENDING THE PETITION FOR ITSELF AND ON BEHALF OF ITS OFFICERS OR SUCH OTHER PERSONS.
But in the Paragraph--51(1) of the “First Schedule”, the Act says that when the election petition complains about the conduct of an electoral officer, a presiding officer, returning officer, or any other official of the commission, he shall be DEEMED TO BE A RESPONDENT, AND BE JOINED IN THE ELECTION PETITION AS A NECESSARY PARTY.

These two provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 are clearly contradicting themselves.

So the question here is...
“Which one out of these two contradicting provisions of the “Electoral Act 2026” would be taken as the substantial law?”

..


Now that I have finished listing out the issues which I discovered with the Newly Enacted “Electoral Act 2026”....... Only two things are now left to be done.

1. It's either that the National Assembly members go back and amend the “Electoral Act 2026” in such a way to answer all these “Questions” without further ambiguities..

...Or...

2. That some spirited citizens (or knowledgeable politicians) should pick up these “Questions” and head to any “Federal High Court” in the country for Further Interpretations, and for the issuance of necessary “Court Orders” to the INEC.

This Second Option Is Very Risky Though..

But nevertheless,,
..Rather than heading towards the next elections with a very confusing “Electoral Act” - without doing anything about it - then it is better to at-least head to the courts early enough, in order to know exactly where the Electoral Act truly stands in the eyes of the law -- and thus, minimize ambiguities.