₦airaland Forum

fergie001:
Is it related to $460,000?

Let us know how the Judges would see it at the end of the day..

Some criminal activities (narcotics and money laundering) got some money into a man's account.
And while proceedings were going on, he forfeited the money.

So,, let the Judges say something here.

fergie001:
A follow-up to:
"Senator Peter Nwaoboshi Has 20 Bank Accounts In 6 Banks"

Senator Peter Nwaoboshi Arrested, Detained By EFCC

Appeal Court Jails Senator Peter Nwaoboshi For 7 Years For Money Laundering



SOURCE

Is this not Ned Nwoko trying to rubbish this man??

politicoNG:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02PrSk2ucvqhozxNysnWUKs7QwBpPKvAqRgX7YwChVhyooGE9xPkBwafdmLQhfKJWRl&id=100068850777180&mibextid=Nif5oz

According to all known history, when was the last time there was any earthquake or a volcanic eruption in any sub-saharan African countries.??

So, what's the need of the device?
When likely are we expecting such a natural phenomenon in this part of the world.??

TemplarLandry:
Everybody's jumping on the “Marathon” bandwagon. Word to Hilda Baci for opening their eyes.

Even Sexathon and Kissathon

ganisucks:

Behold the works of the armed wing of the Obidient movement all in the name of Biafra. Enugu was relatively peaceful whilst Gburugburu was there but now we are witnessing this savage barbarity against children. I am at a loss for words. This is pure evil. Are these… pic.twitter.com/MAORcGe3lX

— Femi Fani-Kayode (@realFFK) July 7, 2023

Fake-News Chief-Peddler......
He is Just Living True to this name..

For FFK to equate the criminals inside this video to the Obidients is just a clear confirmation that this man doesn't even know who the Obidients exactly are..

..

EcoBrick:
https://saharareporters.com/2023/07/06/i-curse-day-i-joined-labour-party-because-peter-obi-74-year-old-woman-lambasts-ex

New wine shouldn't be poured into old jars.
Else the old jar will break and burst and waste the whole wine.

The woman thought that thongs were still the way they used to be.
She didn't have Nigeria at heart while joining LP.
AND NOW, HER PERSONAL EXPECTATIONS WERE NOT MET.

Tell me why anyone should be complaining against LP who didn't even win the election..
She’s regretting not going the APC actually.

Lalasticlala, Seun, Nlfpmod

saphiere:
Hmmm

Please I need a job

Na your fellow woman shaa..

saphiere:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CuW9lV7O5JA/

So, what are the GWR rules and regulations given to her??

Condoms or no condoms??
Dildos? Or real humans?
Artificial wetting allowed.??

In open space or in private??

Stanweezy:
No be Dem get the site dey can do and undo.


There is every possibility Jamb uttered that little girl's result.


2009 Jamb I wrote the result was 214 my Physics then was 33, after some weeks we heard Jamb is upgrading their score due to error in certain subject and me been sure of my physics and the possibility of me having such a ridiculous score.

I rechecked again, my physics jumps to 67 from 33 and the total score went from 214 to 248. That same result got me admitted into Electrical/Electronics Engineering.


So Jamb is not left out in this scenario and I believe those that wrote Jamb 2009 will testify this.

Bro..



Go and show them your results and collect your N1m.

TheStrongest:
Jamb no well o..

I had 2 different scores/result when I wrote jamb in 2013..

219 was the first score, then during post utme I noticed say the score dropped to 210..

And na Uniben I applied to.. any further dropping from that I for no get admission 😂😂😂..

Werey jamb!!

But for this girl matter we nor really know who dey lie or who dey talk true sha.

Guy,, carry that original one of 219 and the one of 210 and go to JAMB Office..


E no mean anything about the year.. (2013)
Just go there and collect your 1-million Naira.

bizhop01:
Only 1million

If you have the evidence,, go and collect the money..

Sirchiboy:
Sir make it 10m so I can use it to process my Germany travel please

Go and collect the one that is readily available..

Lalasticlala, Seun, Nlfpmod

drlateef:
The law states Direct Transmission: this can be by any means direct. And based on recent interpretations by the supreme court, manual transmission is the best form of direct transmission. Manual transmission simply means computing results from form EC8As directly at collation centres. BVAS is not involved in direct manual transmission.

I repeat....
Let us resolve the issue of Direct Transmission of Accreditation Data first..


And for you to say that “BVAS is not involved in direct manual transmission”,, you're very wrong there..
The Law said something about “the number of accredited voters stated on the collated result” being correct and CONSISTENT with “the number of accredited voters recorded and transmitted directly from polling units”.. [Section-64(4)(a)]

This showed that after the Collation of the results (Which your whole attention is based on),, there is also The Collation of the Number of Accredited Voters,, which I am trying so hard to bring to your notice,, and which you're trying so hard to prove its inexistence..

(Yet you had agreed earlier on this very thread, that “only the BVAS” can be used to verify the NUMBER OF ACCREDITED VOTERS..)

Why are you turning round again to say that “BVAS is not involved in direct manual transmission.”??
How else can the “NUMBER OF ACCREDITED VOTERS” be verified in all the Collation Centers.??

BOSSkesh:
Go to court

Hahahahahaha..


It's left to the person to choose..
N1m?? Or “Court”.??

.



It's time for all those people who had two different results printed from the JAMB-Portal to go and make cool money..

JAMB’s Spokesperson, Dr. Fabian Benjamin, had dared anybody who has a strong proof that JAMB have had glitches or errors in their results,, And they would give the person N1m as reward.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQpeGXmgQFY



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV4o0DvEagg

She didn't read the guidelines for the GWR...

She just dey flout the rules anyhow.

drlateef:
“ Thus, every Collation-Officer and Returning-Officer is mandated under the law to carry out this verification process “using the transmitted BVAS-Machines”, as agreed by the INEC..


That’s your main argument, isn’t it? Where in the Electoral Act is INEC mandated to transmit results by BVAS alone? INEC guidelines can change from electronic to manual transmission of results. In fact, the judges have stated from their judgements that transmission is more “direct” if done manually by recognising original copies of form EC8As as the primary source of evidence for that purpose. They posited that technical glitches and errors can prevent electronic transmission and therefore, should not be used as primary evidence of transmission of results. Why do you think electronic transmission should be the only mode of transmission according to law? Not according to guidance?

Good Morning.

You're really trying so hard to divert this discussion..
But I won't oblige you that.

You see your argument above,, I want you to remove anything that talks about “Results” from it, and replace it with “ACCREDITATION DATA”..

Remove “EC8As” from it, and replace it with “BVAS-Machines”..

Remove “EC8As for the results”, and replace it with “BVAS-Machines for the Accreditation Data”..


Remove “Electronic Transmission” from it, and replace it with “Direct Manual Transmission”..


Now,, you can see that we are saying the same thing on one side..
But you're totally avoiding the most important aspect of the discussion.

So, do the little adjustments above, and then teach me what the law says..

drlateef:
I have stated my points clearly. The law recognises BVAS only for accreditation purpose. It is a primary source of information only for accreditation of voters. Not to chat photo images of EC8As. Because technical problems can prevent proper uploading of EC8As to BVAS. And since the original copies of EC8As are available, checking BVAS for the photo image is unnecessary. So it is established in law that BVAS is the primary source for accreditation details only. Original copies of EC8As are primary source for voting figures, no BVAS, not iREV. That’s where Obi is deliberately getting it wrong because he is clawing the last straw that is useless. To establish over-voting which is not a ground for petition in this case surprisingly, you need voters register and accreditation figures on BVAS. These have been established by recent court judgments which were judicial interpretations of the Electoral Act. Any other argument are abracadabra.

I am not arguing the sources of the electoral information here..

I am just trying to unbundle what the term “MANUAL TRANSMISSION” means; that is, assuming that INEC applied it properly, when seen through the lenses of the Section-64(4 - 8.) of the Electoral-Act-2022..

BVAS-main is the source of Accreditation Data.
No doubts about that.
(Now.. Let us not even talk about the results here.. Let us base on the “Transmission” of Accreditation Data Only)..

The Section-64(4)(a) said that EVERY Collation Officer and including the Returning Officers must use the ACCREDITATION DATA that were “Transmitted Directly From The Polling Units” to verify all their Collated Accreditation Data before they can say that they have completed their collation.
The Electoral Act didn't specify that it is only the WARDS COLLATION OFFICERS THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO CARRY OUT THE CHECK..

Thus, every Collation-Officer and Returning-Officer is mandated under the law to carry out this verification process “using the transmitted BVAS-Machines”, as agreed by the INEC..


Section-64(6)(c) said that where there is a dispute during collation, (the law didn't say that the dispute can only be settled at the Ward-Level or LGA-Level -- the law envisaged that the disputes can come up at any point in the process of collation),, the Collation Officer or the Returning Officer must use the ACCREDITATION DATA that were “Transmitted Directly From The Polling Units” to settle the dispute.


So, you have to stop dragging my argument to where I am not dragging it to.

I am just trying to see and understand the Section-64 of the Electoral Act, if INEC fully and properly applied the MANUAL TRANSMISSION., rather than PARTIAL Application of the method.

drlateef:
I can’t believe that simply logic escapes your brain. How can collation officers be looking at pictures of results on BVAS when the same hard copies are available with polling officers and agents? How is looking at pictures of what was taken better than the original copies whose pictures were taken? Therefore your reasoning is faulty. What the law expects from collation officers is to check the records of accreditation on BVAS and reconcile with what you have on EC8As. That is all. I understand your faulty reasoning is because you just want the judges consider photographs on BVAS so as to tally with what you get on iREV. That can never work. The law is clear: BVAS to check accreditation and form EC8As to check votes cast. No other argument is tenable in
Law.

Your submission is wrong at four points which I emboldened..

1st. The Electoral-Act didn't mention any form of verification with hard copies that are with the Polling Officers and AGENTS..
Read the Electoral-Act again abbegg..


2nd.. Read Section-64(4b)..
After reconciliation of the EC8As accreditation values with the BVAS,, The EC8As-results should also be reconciled too. So, why are you interested in only the accreditation values without saying anything about the results itself.??
I repeat.... Read Section-64(4b) all-over again.


3rd.. I wrote a very long post,, but I suggested that the BVAS Should be transmitted manually.,, Just the way INEC Agreed in the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal..
I didn't suggest anything about IREV.
So,, can you just tell me the reason you involved IREV in your response.
(Easy guess... You didn't even understand my sarcastic logic)


4th.. The Electoral-Act in Section-64 made the whole verification process very clear.
Section-64(4a). Verify Collation of Accreditation with the Accreditation Data that were transmitted directly from the Polling-units.
Section-64(4b). Verify Collation of Results with the Results that were transmitted directly from the Polling-units.

Gerfield1, Litigator..



Come and see what “MANUAL TRANSMISSION” truly entails...

Penguin2, Racoon.


Come and see where they failed it woefully in implementing their so-called “Manual Transmission”..

Fergie001..

I just decided to think through the brains of the INEC’s counsel,, and to actually apply the way it definitely should be in Section-64 -- that is,, if the TRANSMISSION was actually MANUAL..

I will still come again later..

Where I am going to suggest some necessary amendments to this current Electoral-Act-2022.



For now,, make we still dey analyse am as e dey,, so that we can understand it well well

I don come again with long wahalla sheeyy??




..
Na wetin INEC dey cause be that.
Since they decided to understand the Electoral-Act-2022 from the tail,, then let us all understand it from the tail too,, and then, apply it from the tail too..

They cannot understand it from the tail,, and then come back to start applying it from the head..
IT IS JUST IMPOSSIBLE..