₦airaland Forum

Kukutenla:
Obi, Buhari of the south.
If he can leverage on this popularity, he can com back strongly in the next four years

Racoon:
“It's not what we do once in a while that shapes our lives. It's what we do consistently.” ― Anthony Robbins

Reactions:

ACCORDING TO THE ELECTORAL ACT 2022; THE “ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION” OF RESULTS “DIRECTLY FROM THE POLLING-UNITS” IS ACTUALLY MANDATORY, AND NOT OPTIONAL.

Section-64:
Sub-Section-(4) A collation officer or returning officer at an election SHALL collate and announce the result of an election, subject to his or her verification and confirmation that the—

(a) number of accredited voters stated on the collated result are correct and CONSISTENT with the number of accredited voters recorded and transmitted directly from polling units under section 47(2) of this Act; and

(b) the votes stated on the collated result are correct and CONSISTENT with the “votes or results” recorded and transmitted directly from polling units under section 60(4) of this Act.

Sub-Section-(5) Subject to subsection (1), a collation officer or returning officer shall use the number of accredited voters recorded and transmitted directly from polling units under section 47(2) of this Act and the votes or results recorded and transmitted directly from polling units under section 60(4) of this Act to collate and announce the result of an election if a collated result at his or a lower level of collation is not correct.

Sub-Section-(6) Where during collation of results, there is a dispute regarding a collated result or the result of an election from any polling unit, the collation officer or returning officer shall use the following to determine the correctness of the disputed result—

(a) the original of the disputed collated result for each polling unit where the election is disputed;

(b) the smart card reader or other technology device used for accreditation of voters in each polling unit where the election is disputed for the purpose of obtaining accreditation data directly from the smart card reader or technology device;

(c) data of accreditation recorded and transmitted directly from each polling unit where the election is disputed, as prescribed under section 47(2) of this Act; and

(d) the votes and result of the election recorded and transmitted directly from each polling unit where the election is disputed, as prescribed under section 60(4) of this Act.

Sub-Section-(7) If the disputed result under sub-section-(6) were otherwise found not to be correct, the collation officer or returning officer shall re-collate and announce a new result using the information in sub-section-(6) (a)-(d).

Sub-Section-(8.) Where the dispute under sub-section-(6) arose at the level of collation and the returning officer has satisfied the provision of sub-section-(6) (a)-(d), the returning officer shall accordingly declare the winner of the election.

Sub-Section-(9) A returning officer or collation officer, as the case may be, commits an offence if he or she intentionally collates or announces A FALSE RESULT and is liable on conviction to a fine of N5,000,000 or imprisonment for a term of at least three years or both.

Peterobiisathie:
https://mobile.twitter.com/renoomokri/status/1633452758274637825


https://mobile.twitter.com/renoomokri/status/1633456293099761666

Abiodunstephen:
https://dailypost.ng/2023/03/08/guber-election-god-forbid-aisha-yesufu-disagrees-with-peter-obi-over-governorship-candidate/?amp=1

Idiotseverywher:
. Please can you actually tell us what you are trying to defend and why?

Jokay07:
Please bear with me, I am a bit occupied. I will reply ASAP

BluntCrazeMan:
One thing the Electoral Act made very clear (And Factual) is that: “The Directly Transmitted Results From the Polling-units” SHALL be used for the “Verification” of the “Collated Results”...
And also, that the Collated Results must be “CONSISTENT WITH” the “Directly Transmitted Results From the Polling-Units”..

So, are we together on the above??
(At least from there, we can continue further)



Because, that is what I’ve been trying to break down in the whole of my analysis..

garfield1:
Unfortunately, you can't prove anything

fergie001:
If there is anything like over-overwhelming the better.

The SC lead judgement in Atiku Abubakar v Yaradua:

The lead judgement by Niki Tobi JSC (of Blessed memory)

Petitioner who contests the legality or lawfulness of votes cast in an election and subsequent result must tender in evidence all the necessary documents by way of forms and other documents used at the election. He should not stop there. He must call witnesses to testify that the illegality or unlawfulness substantially affected the result of the election. The documents are among those in which the results of the votes are recorded. The witnesses are those who saw it all on the day of election not those who picked the evidence from eye-witness. No. They must be eye witness too. Both forms and witnesses are vital for contesting the legality or lawfulness of votes and the subsequent result of the election. One cannot be substitute for the other. It is not enough for the Petitioner to tender only the documents. It is incumbent on him to lead evidence in respect of the wrong doings or irregularities both in the conduct of the election and recording of the votes; wrong doings and irregularities, which affected substantially the result of the election.”

garfield1:
That is why you need to be in collation centres

garfield1:
You still dont get it Mr.you have never obviously never been in an election or collation centre. the collation officers do not check results on the inec back end as you are thinking or log into any inec server. they simply compare manually prepared results and results captured on the bvas afterall what was transmitted is still in the bvas.they dont mechanically follow it as you think.it is not black and white but done flexibly.it is only the ratech and in some cases the spos that make sure results have actually been sent not the collation officers Mr.collatuin officers only take records of what you have on ec8a and your bvas and see check for discrepancies.

Genius100:
Lol.. so how do you punish technology? I believe someone has already told you about the term “substantial noncompliance”.

Besides that, let’s assume you are right. If the presidential election is deemed not to have followed the electoral act, then so will the house and senate elections. In what universe do you see the Judges cancelling all elections because of something that can’t be deemed to be “substantial noncompliance”.

Genius100:
Who is supposed to enter the results into the CSRVS system from the polling unit? As far as I know, the polling unit workers are only supposed to take a picture of the result sheet, and the image (not numbers) gets uploaded into iREV. So how does the result get inputted into CSRVS system?

0monnak0da:
16th wonder because there are potentially 2 appeals and the best I see them getting is a cancellation and ordering a rerun . Who will be in charge of that rerun and what is to stop the same thing happening again?

We need to look at the system so that elections are concluded earlier and no one is sworn in until cases resolved.

garfield1:
Apart from that,there are two mode of transmission,online and offline.if they couldn't transmit it due to network,they will transmit it on offline mode thereby satisfying the requirement of transmission. it would show sent or pending which takes it out of their hands

Genius100:
Lol. They attempted to transmit but it didn't work. This argument is really going nowhere..

garfield1:
And it must be so overwhelming that it can change the final outcome or course of the election.it must affect the margin bw tinubu and atiku at least

fergie001:
Only the drafters of the Constitution cam say so.



What the bolded simply states is that the FCT is not a State (it is distinct), even though it should be treated as if it was a State. (Simile "as" -emphasis mine). Whilst the States enjoy Executive powers through their Govs, legislative powers through their SHAs, the FCT is led by the NA and the executive powers vested in the President.

The Constitution will have been using 37 States if the FCT wasn't meant to be distinguishable.

However, the "in" you brought in there I am sure is what Agim will use in dismissing the case.😁