₦airaland Forum

pquaver:
My brother if u r literate, expose to accept the decision knowing fully well democracy is not only about when u win, my friend there are lots of Zom bie dients in Nigeria with no thinking faculty who wont and will always draw up conspiracy theories.. That is fact

You asked me a “simple” question..
And I answered you straight-forwardly..
And you're digressing again??

From where did the talk of this “lots of Zom bie dients” came into this again??

I told you what is generally obtainable..
If you love dealing with your “lots of Zom bie dients”,, then over to you.

Continue abbegg.

I am off your mentions.

Guilty people always talk like this to feel better.

Tell this woman that only less than 15% of all women alive world-wide, (and less than 8% of women in Nigeria) had done abortion once..

She even said “Twice”.??
And she was even thinking that “Twice” is a small number?

Can someone ask her how many abortions she has done already?

pquaver:
I asked u a simple question.. If it was inec that came back after announcing obi as winner and then cancel it and said tinubu is the winner that results were altered as a result of human influence, will you accept it? Simple question.. overripe plantain ko..

It's the same thing as asking me if the tribunal dismissed the election of a candidate I supported, and ascertained that there was error due human influence, whether I should accept.??
Now tell me the reason I shouldn't accept it,, (even though I didn't like the verdict).??

If a system is put in place to run an election as quickly as possible, and another independent body to run a review of both the election process and the collation process, and to come up with a forensic report within 72-hours,, why wouldn't I accept their review report.??

You are here telling me to accept the verdict of the supreme court after 8-months..
And you think that everything is okay with it.
(You don't think that 8-months period is too long..??)

....
Whereas, if it was an Electronic Voting, the final results would be out within 2-days, and an independent forensic review/audit would conducted within the next five days - even by private forensic firms..
So, why would anybody even want to go to the tribunal again after seeing the detailed forensic report of the review of the election??

Tell me.
Why would anybody go to tribunal again?

..
The so-called checks-and-balances of our manual election took 8-months, and people were still skeptical about it..

And you're here rejecting a system that would facilitate a very quick system of checks-and-balances from various forensic firms which wouldn't even last more than 2-days.

yemex04:
First or foremost, once the Supreme Court has taken a position on a matter, it becomes the law.. Anything contrary can not be deemed to be right.

Secondly, I have read through the Regulations & electoral act & I can comprehend that snapping & uploading the form EC8A(which is physically available)on IREV is not electronic transmission of results.. Electronic transmission is done directly to the INEC server not IREV portal.. IREV portal is meant for public to view not for collation.You too reason through, how easy will it be to wait & check through IREV portals to start downloading loads of PDF documents for collation when you have exactly same document physically? IREV is meant to be resorted to if there's dispute among Parties at the collation centre on the form EC8A physically presented by the Presiding Officer.

Again, the Regulations you put here did not make IREV portal results compulsory for Collation, it makes form EC8A the most important which is available the the Presiding Officers, Parties Agents, Police Officers & the IREV Portal....

My Observation is that many have been assuming the IREV uploaded results is the electronically transmitted is results.. it is not.

Question-1: Can the courts (say - the supreme court) be approached to further interprete a judgement passed by the supreme court.?

2. In Clause-38(i) and 38(ii), the two sub-clauses are what the presiding officer must do before leaving the polling unit. And the two translates to Electronic Transmission.
38(i) is the transmission to collation system.
38(ii) is the transmission to IREV.

So my question is, if you say that the Electronic Transmission of photos of the results to the IREV is not known as Electronic Transmission, then what is it?? Electronic Upload?

3. After the conditions for collation, that were specified in sub-clause-48(a), the clause mentioned, “as prescribed in these Regulations and Guidelines.”
So, can you tell me the clauses inside the INEC-Regulations that was referred to in the above clause?

garfield1:
According to the court,inec has all the liberty to do as it pleases in transmission.if you don't like it,prove it substantially

Some interpretations need to be made by the courts..
That's what I said.
And that's what I am still saying.

This is not a case of taking anyone to court.
This is a case of trying to understand the judgements better.

Bobloco:
Going by the pronouncement of the supreme court, the IREV portal is useless and should be pulled down.

Then,, I think the best thing to do is either to do demonstrations in large numbers in front of their offices nation-wide, not to waste our money again on the IREV-Portal, and to use the BVAS Machine ONLY for Accreditation and nothing else.
Or take them to court demanding same..
Or the both of them.

AntiChristian:
The case has been settled!

No Obi as president!

We would just be engaging in constructive discussions about some court-Judgement interpretations, and be discussing what is hidden inside the interpretations,, and someone will carry “Obi” and throw inside the discussion..
And then feel so stupidly contented about the senseless comment..


Oga, like seriously,, are you normal.??

Or didn’t you realize that we are trying to understand the already-passed judgement better for the sake of all future upcoming elections??

Is this how badly tortured Obi had delt your feeble mind.??
To the extent that you think that every discussion anywhere that has some political undertone is about Obi??

Check yourself bro.
And I think it's you should move on too.
(Both you and all other guys-like-you who still feel so badly tortured in their minds by Obi)

pquaver:
Stop asking stupid questions.. Nigeria is not ripe for that.. How is it hard for u to understand.
It has its weakness like hacking, human influence just like in Switzerland..

You just landed where I wanted you to land.

Happy Weekend.

Nigeria is over-ripe for anything bro..
Even for realtime online voting with mobile internet touch-screen devices.

The only possible problems to accepting this readiness are the retrogressives who still see Nigeria and Nigerians as stone-age neanderthals.
To them, they are being real. But the reality is that they don't see the true capacity of Nigeria and Nigerians.

garfield1:
Section 60 gave inec various alternatives.

Those are not alternatives.
Those are procedures..
And a presiding officer must perform all those procedures as outlined.

besides,this is theory.in practice,this isn't done.

In practice, there is IREV.
So,, why not use the IREV to cross-check.??

This can only happen if inec chooses electronic transmission according to section 60. If they don't, they can transmit and collate however they like.

Section-60(5) - “transmit .... in a manner prescribed by the commission”. The commission (INEC) released the INEC-Regulations and prescribed the manner in Clause-38.
Why coming back to do things however they like?
(Stop making it to be like as if the INEC has all the liberty to be lawless)

Even if inec violates the act,it is left for obi or any aggrieved party to show that there was substantial noncompliance and that this noncompliance affected the final outcome.

And I repeat again..
Stop making it to appear like as if the INEC has all the liberty to be lawless.

garfield1:
Irev is useful but cannot override the manual copies.

Sub-clause-48(a) of the INEC-Regulations seems to be saying something else that is different from what you typed here

Christistruth00:
Bad loosers who cannot handle an Election defeat or Supreme Court Judgements against them must be banned from standing in all future Elections

Politicians who incite public Violence, Insurrection or Chaos must also be banned from standing in Elections

Nigeria is greater than anyone's Political Ambition

Are these suggestions to Electoral-Act amendment??

How can they be empirically determined and thus implemented??

Nplfmod Obinoscopy Dominique Chisomkachy Chokekachy Seun Donphilopus Indispensable Buhariguy Abagworo Kukutente23 Jrusky Aiel123 Rolams Saintinoo Gaabasky Mymouth Arrewanorth Tutudesz Calmobserver Zoedew Ejimatic Seanfer Helinues Pakute Generalpula

Racoon, Litigator, Penguin2, Garfield1

garfield1:
How? The issue is that obi made non transmission a ground for cancellations which is foolish and ridiculous.does non transmission or late transmission prevents collation?

Inec regulations is useless as far as they do not contradict the EA2022

The Supreme Court based its Judgement on the Clause-93 of the INEC-Regulations alone (even without making any references to the Electoral-Act) to conclude that since there are other alternatives provided inside the Clause-93 of the INEC-Regulations which can be used in the absence of IREV-Portal Results, then, the IREV Portal cannot be considered as compulsory.

Is that really true??
Is that truly what the INEC-Regulations meant in that Clause-93??

Before we get to Clause-93,, let us first read Clauses-38, & 48 of the same INEC-Regulations..

38. On completion of all the Polling Unit voting and results procedures, the
Presiding Officer SHALL:

(i) Electronically transmit or transfer the result of the Polling Unit, direct to the collation system as prescribed by the Commission.

(ii) Use the BVAS to upload a scanned copy of the EC8A to the INEC Result Viewing Portal (IReV), as prescribed by the Commission.

(iii) Take the BVAS and the original copy of each of the forms in tamper-evident envelope to the Registration Area/Ward Collation Officer, in the company of Security Agents. The Polling Agents may accompany the Presiding Officer to the RA/Ward Collation Centre.

This means that,, immediately the Clause-38(ii) is carried out by the Presiding Officer, we are expecting to see the uploaded results appearing INSTANTLY on the IREV Portal.,, because it is going to be used to carry out the task that is specifically specified in sub-clause-48(a)....

***(This continues to make me wonder why we couldn't see even the successfully “exported” and uploaded results there and then at the polling units before the Presiding officers left the venue of the election - until after several hours after the Presiding Officers had left.)*
.
.

48. (a) An election result SHALL ONLY BE COLLATED if the Collation Officer ascertains that the number of accredited voters agrees with the number recorded in the BVAS and votes scored by Political Parties on the result sheet is correct and agrees with the result electronically transmitted or transferred directly from the Polling Unit as prescribed in these Regulations and Guidelines.

(b) If a Collation or Returning Officer determines that a result from a lower level of collation is not correct, he/she shall use the result electronically transmitted or transferred directly from that lower level to collate and announce the result.

(c) if no result has been directly transmitted electronically for a polling unit or any level of collation, the provision of Clause 93 of these Regulations shall be applied.

The Provisions of sub-Clause-48(a) stands alone on its own. It specifically specified that COLLATION CAN ONLY OCCUR FOR ANY POLLING UNIT RESULT if the accreditation data is cross-checked with the BVAS of that polling unit, and the voting results cross-checked with the electronically transmitted results. If a Polling Unit Result doesn't fullfil these two criteria, it cannot be collated.
THERE ARE NO ALTERNATIVES PROVIDED HERE..
It means that, even if the hard-copies of the polling units are there, collation of such Polling-unit would still no go on with the rest of the polling units that has the criteria complete.
This is exactly what the Section-64 of the Electoral-Act-2022 clearly prescribed..
***(Nevertheless, let us continue to read further, so that we can have a balanced conclusion on this.)*


Then, in sub-clause-48(b); the INEC-Regulations made it clear that Collation had already started and had already passed some levels of collation. That is why it mentioned “LOWER LEVEL OF COLLATION”.. Therefore, the INEC-Regulations intended that “Collation Officers” - after collating their results (and still cross-checking them again according to the Electoral-Act:S-64(4b)) should also transmit it ELECTRONICALLY too..
**(Please go back and read that sub-clause-48(b) again)
This sub-clause-48(b) clearly means that it is not only the POLLING-UNIT RESULTS that should be transmitted electronically.

Then the sub-clause-48(c) refers to the ABSENCE of all forms of electronically transmitted results. Whether from the polling unit or from any level of collation.

93. Where the INEC hardcopy of “COLLATED RESULTS” from the immediate lower level of
collation does not exist, the Collation Officer shall use electronically transmitted results or results from the IReV portal to continue collation.
Where none of these exist, the Collation Officer shall ask for duplicate hardcopies issued by the Commission to the following bodies in the order below:
(i) The Nigeria Police Force; and
(ii) Agents of Political Parties.

As earlier stated for sub-clause-48(b), the Clause-93 made it very clear that Collation had already started, and had passed some levels of collation,, and it didn't say anything that countered the cross-checking of the POLLING-UNIT RESULTS with the electronically transmitted results as specified in sub-clause-48(a).

Clause-93 clearly referred to “HARDCOPIES OF COLLATED RESULTS FROM THE IMMEDIATE LOWER LEVELS OF COLLATION”.
It didn't refer to Hardcopies of Polling Units Results. This means that, the Condition for the Collation of any Polling Unit Results as outlined in sub-clause-48(a) still stands unchanged.

Thus, Clause-93 is saying:
“If some or all of the original INEC hardcopies of the collated results from the immediate lower levels of collation are not available, the collation officer can use the electronically transmitted collated results from these immediate lower levels, or use the photos of the COLLATED RESULTS FROM THE IMMEDIATE LOWER LEVELS as uploaded to the IREV..
And if these two options are not available, then the duplicate hardcopies of the COLLATED RESULTS FROM THE IMMEDIATE LOWER LEVELS can be obtained from the Police, or from agents of political parties..
And again,, this doesn't stop or affect the very first criteria set out in sub-clause-48(a).

In Summary.
1. The INEC-Regulations made it very clear that the only condition for any polling unit to be collated is if the Accreditation Data in the results sheet is confirmed with the data inside the BVAS, and the voting results confirmed with the electronically transmitted results. There are no alternatives provided.
If a Polling Unit doesn't have these two, it cannot be collated.

2. After collation, the collation officers are to also transmit their COLLATED RESULTS electronically too..,, although, this is not compulsory according to the INEC-Regulations,, since there are alternatives for this option.

garfield1:
How? The issue is that obi made non transmission a ground for cancellations which is foolish and ridiculous.does non transmission or late transmission prevents collation?

I will answer this in a jiffy.

Fergie001..

This is why I said that those three Clauses of the INEC-Regulations (read together with the whole of Section-64 of the Electoral-Act) needed some deeper interpretations..

garfield1:
Irev is not useless,it is the second most important copy of inec result sheets.infact, when there's a dispute over figures,what is on irev is more important than the inec form

You're telling a lie here..
And you know it..


Next thing now,, you will tell me that the INEC-Regulations is also very useless too.

The Supreme Court based its Judgement about the INEC’s IREV Portal on the Clause-93 of the INEC-Regulations alone (even without making any references to the Electoral-Act) and thus, they went ahead to conclude that since there are other possible alternatives provided inside the Clause-93 of the INEC-Regulations which can be used in the absence of IREV-Portal Results, then, the IREV Portal cannot be considered as compulsory.

Is that really true??
Is that truly what the INEC-Regulations meant in that Clause-93??

Before we get to Clause-93,, let us first read Clauses-38, & 48 of the same INEC-Regulations..

38. On completion of all the Polling Unit voting and results procedures, the
Presiding Officer SHALL:

(i) Electronically transmit or transfer the result of the Polling Unit, direct to the collation system as prescribed by the Commission.

(ii) Use the BVAS to upload a scanned copy of the EC8A to the INEC Result Viewing Portal (IReV), as prescribed by the Commission.

(iii) Take the BVAS and the original copy of each of the forms in tamper-evident envelope to the Registration Area/Ward Collation Officer, in the company of Security Agents. The Polling Agents may accompany the Presiding Officer to the RA/Ward Collation Centre.

This means that,, immediately the Clause-38(ii) is carried out by the Presiding Officer, we are expecting to see the uploaded results appearing INSTANTLY on the IREV Portal.,, because it is going to be used to carry out the task that is specifically specified in sub-clause-48(a)....

***(This continues to make me wonder why we couldn't see even the successfully “exported” and uploaded results there and then at the polling units before the Presiding officers left the venue of the election - until after several hours after the Presiding Officers had left.)*
.
.

48. (a) An election result SHALL ONLY BE COLLATED if the Collation Officer ascertains that the number of accredited voters agrees with the number recorded in the BVAS and votes scored by Political Parties on the result sheet is correct and agrees with the result electronically transmitted or transferred directly from the Polling Unit as prescribed in these Regulations and Guidelines.

(b) If a Collation or Returning Officer determines that a result from a lower level of collation is not correct, he/she shall use the result electronically transmitted or transferred directly from that lower level to collate and announce the result.

(c) if no result has been directly transmitted electronically for a polling unit or any level of collation, the provision of Clause 93 of these Regulations shall be applied.

The Provisions of sub-Clause-48(a) stands alone on its own. It specifically specified that COLLATION CAN ONLY OCCUR FOR ANY POLLING UNIT RESULT if the accreditation data is cross-checked with the BVAS of that polling unit, and the voting results cross-checked with the electronically transmitted results. If a Polling Unit Result doesn't fullfil these two criteria, it cannot be collated.
THERE ARE NO ALTERNATIVES PROVIDED HERE..
It means that, even if the hard-copies of the polling units are there, collation of such Polling-unit would still no go on with the rest of the polling units that has the criteria complete.
This is exactly what the Section-64 of the Electoral-Act-2022 clearly prescribed..
***(Nevertheless, let us continue to read further, so that we can have a balanced conclusion on this.)*


Then, in sub-clause-48(b); the INEC-Regulations made it clear that Collation had already started and had already passed some levels of collation. That is why it mentioned “LOWER LEVEL OF COLLATION”.. Therefore, the INEC-Regulations intended that “Collation Officers” - after collating their results (and still cross-checking them again according to the Electoral-Act:S-64(4b)) should also transmit it ELECTRONICALLY too..
**(Please go back and read that sub-clause-48(b) again)
This sub-clause-48(b) clearly means that it is not only the POLLING-UNIT RESULTS that should be transmitted electronically.

Then the sub-clause-48(c) refers to the ABSENCE of all forms of electronically transmitted results. Whether from the polling unit or from any level of collation.

93. Where the INEC hardcopy of “COLLATED RESULTS” from the immediate lower level of
collation does not exist, the Collation Officer shall use electronically transmitted results or results from the IReV portal to continue collation.
Where none of these exist, the Collation Officer shall ask for duplicate hardcopies issued by the Commission to the following bodies in the order below:
(i) The Nigeria Police Force; and
(ii) Agents of Political Parties.

As earlier stated for sub-clause-48(b), the Clause-93 made it very clear that Collation had already started, and had passed some levels of collation,, and it didn't say anything that countered the cross-checking of the POLLING-UNIT RESULTS with the electronically transmitted results as specified in sub-clause-48(a).

Clause-93 clearly referred to “HARDCOPIES OF COLLATED RESULTS FROM THE IMMEDIATE LOWER LEVELS OF COLLATION”.
It didn't refer to Hardcopies of Polling Units Results. This means that, the Condition for the Collation of any Polling Unit Results as outlined in sub-clause-48(a) still stands unchanged.

Thus, Clause-93 is saying:
“If some or all of the original INEC hardcopies of the collated results from the immediate lower levels of collation are not available, the collation officer can use the electronically transmitted collated results from these immediate lower levels, or use the photos of the COLLATED RESULTS FROM THE IMMEDIATE LOWER LEVELS as uploaded to the IREV..
And if these two options are not available, then the duplicate hardcopies of the COLLATED RESULTS FROM THE IMMEDIATE LOWER LEVELS can be obtained from the Police, or from agents of political parties..
And again,, this doesn't stop or affect the very first criteria set out in sub-clause-48(a).

In Summary.
1. The INEC-Regulations made it very clear that the only condition for any polling unit to be collated is if the Accreditation Data in the results sheet is confirmed with the data inside the BVAS, and the voting results confirmed with the electronically transmitted results. There are no alternatives provided.
If a Polling Unit doesn't have these two, it cannot be collated.

2. After collation, the collation officers are to also transmit their COLLATED RESULTS electronically too..,, although, this is not compulsory according to the INEC-Regulations,, since there are alternatives for this option.

fergie001:
Just an extension of S60(5) of the EA2022.

What I think the Act or SC is stressing is the relevancy or elevation of Form EC8A.

So, I ask again..

The IREV is totally useless..
Sheey??

....
Wait oo..
You mean that the INEC inside the Clause-93 of the INEC-Regulations gave some extensions to the S:60(5) of the Electoral-Act-2022??

fergie001:
It is not useless. INEC derives its powers to draw up the manual etc from the 3rd Schedule, Part 1 of the 1999 Constitution.

Moreover, these Regulations & Guidelines are published in the FG Gazette (see S70 of the EA 2022).

Hence, it has legal force and is binding.

"A failure to follow [NEC’s Manual and Approved Guidelines and Regulations constitutes direct violation of sections 49, 57, 58, 73 and 74 of the Electoral Act. The Manual and Approved Guidelines form an integral part of law and regulations for the conduct of election and INEC officials must scrupulously and dutifully comply with it.” (Atiku Abubakar v. INEC) PEPT 2019

Like I said earlier, you cannot elevate the INEC directives, Guidelines and Regulations above the Electoral Act itself. It is out of place to curry pre-eminence on a subsidiary legislation above the primary law.

"It is a serious error for anybody to elevate any directive of INEC far above the provisions of the Electoral Act. Where a party has complied with the provisions of the Electoral Act but is in breach of any directive of INEC, he cannot be said to have breached the provisions of the Electoral Act. Okoro JSC (Abubakar v INEC 2019)

What the INEC directives/Regulations do is to explain more what is already contained in the Electoral Act so it derives its judicial roots from the Electoral Act. To do otherwise, is to elevate an auxiliary procedure above the dominating procedure of proof.


First, these videos, statements, statements and/or announcements have to be admissible in law.

In the case of Obi v INEC, the witnesses depositions on oath were not frontloadeed along with the petition. As long as they satisfy Sections of the Evidence Act, it's good to go.

In the case of Obi, they satisfied those Sections but the witness statements on oath was not frontloadeed alongside the petition.

It makes the IReV still potent.
INEC said it was a technical glitch.

S60(5) of the EA:
The presiding officer shall transfer the results including total number of accredited voters and the results of the ballot in a manner as prescribed by the Commission.

So, it's not a big deal.... Let's amend the Electoral Act 2022 and introduce IReV into it.
The underlined is where INEC did what they wanted to do, so the underlined will have to go.

This is the process that takes place before results are announced.

The verification is to ascertain that number of accredited voters on the BVAS tallies with the number of valid+invalid votes.

That Section speaks about verification/accreditation of voters. It was saying transmit from the polling units but didn't tell us to where. 47(2) speaks about accreditation whilst 60(4) speaks about Results but was non-specific.

Ok..
Now that the supreme court had delivered their final Judgement..

I really think the supreme court need to do some important interpretations here...
..
I mean,, since the supreme court had proven that the INEC-Regulations cannot be thrown into the gutters by quoting clause 93 of the INEC-Regulations and using it to conclude that the IREV is not compulsory (since there is an available alternative that can cause it to be done away with)...

I still want to understand if the Electoral-Act-2022 in any way supports that Clause-93.

The Electoral-Act-2022 didn't give such alternatives.
So, why did the INEC introduce it inside their clause-93??


...
I am asking this because of the upcoming 11th-November-2023 Election.

Ok Shaa

Zee0007:
While you were in school. Which exam got you smiling like this and what did you later score in the exam?

Mine was English and l later scored D7🙄

More than 70% of all the exams I ever wrote..

In fact, almost 85% of all the school exams I ever wrote for academic purposes.

pquaver:
No Nigeria is not ripe foe electronic voting is what i said n i stand on it... Stop twisting the words.. It is clear what i said

So,, Electronic Voting is not the best voting methods?

Misterone:
Nothing dey consume me. You guys are seriously pained. People who care not about their country but their tribal candidates. It's only a subversive that would threaten the judiciary of a country with death just because his/her candidate lost in an election.

Mmmtcheeww..

dickt1:
This response points to the fact that you don't check yourself and/or your parents did a poor job of teaching you manners. You couldn't even notice the obvious. SMDH

Later bro..

Later

Walleeyyi

OLAADEGBU:
Guardian.ng

The eyes of Nigerians are keenly watching Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi, expecting them to openly congratulate President Tinubu.

Buhari never called anyone to Congratulate.
Yet Jonathan called him to congratulate him.

Secondly, is it a crime to NOT Call??
Which Laws made it a crime?

pquaver:
Imagine it was nigeria Obi was declared erroneously and inec came to clarify the mistake that tinubu won.. Will u take it? Infact Nigeria is not ripe for electronic voting oo.. Just imagine if this was 9ja.. David Hundeyin epistle for don long..

What you just said here is:

“Nigeria is not ripe for doing things the best way ooo”.

Tareq1105:
I thought supreme court had ruled yesterday. You normal?

Supreme Court of Switzerland??
Or, what are you talking about??

Are you crazy like this??
Or what exactly is wrong with you.??

Popeonah:
What's your point

_____•

__☝🏻☝🏽

That's my point up there.
It's very small shaa.
A very small point..

StreetFight:
Please are you taking about the USA where the last election led to the invasion of the US National Assembly by supporters of Donald Trump or are the talking about national elections held in South East Nigeria where their son Peter Giringori Obituary got about 90 percent votes while other big contenders shared just about 10 percent? Please clarify

Give up to five options naa, and let me choose the one that best applies.
Why giving only two unclear unrelated options??

Misterone:
....and thirdly, they don't have candidates like Obi and Atiku who are ready to destroy their country for a mess of porridge

Go and cure yourself, and get healed from this type of extreme hatred which is consuming you.