₦airaland Forum

RollinTNDA:
This one no be my concern

One girl forgot her book in class
I kept it for her later I found out. It was her diary

I read some pages and find out she has been crushing on me,
Next day I gather morale go ask the girl out

She said No that it won't work
I just dey confused.. WTF
Person wey I read all her notes about me..

I've decided to not to care about women
The most confused animals on earth

Time to focus on hustle and making money

Kh36:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IORElX7GJ9g
64rd Independence Day Parade in Owerri, Imo State - October 1st 2024.

Racoon:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0dhwVMZZ1DQsnJABJNGVjFTJ7UNZiHxpnu7uS5iGsW7cDqWucLnwN28hye8MMDqqRl&id=100035841242214&sfnsn=scwspwa&mibextid=6aamW6

helinues:


One of them is releasing a new album

Stunts for promotion. Davido was claimed to have been dead when he was about to release his new album

Marketing strategy

Graced1:
Everything is okay now. I can now see my details on NPC and NIS site. I am grateful to you and all who answered my questions. I will complete the attestation process this morning.

Kukutenla:
I agree with you that the EA has a lot of gaps. But if our courts meant well, the EA is well worded enough with latitudes that they could have been progressive on the interpretation and give us better electoral jurisprudence. IREV is covered in the EA. Not explicitly but implicitly. The courts killed IREV not INEC. If IREV was alive, we will not have to live with the ignominy of different result on IREV and different results announced and whoever does not like it is advised to "Go to Court"

Kukutenla:
1. The BVAS is to identify a voter and validate his voting particulars. From this, it will obtain the number of would-be Voters that are accredited to vote in an election and store them. That's s47(2) and it is clear nor under contention. The second role of BVAS that's under contention and which INEC jettisoned and the court applauded is found in s60(5) which I reproduce below. . The manner prescribed by the commission towards 2023 elections was two. IREV and manual submission of forms EC8A. INEC later jettisoned the IREV claiming a glitch occurred. The courts later said INEC guidelines are not binding on it and MORE IMPORTANTLY, IREV is just a viewing portal and has no role in the collation process.

2. I believe you're referring to s64(6) which is in case of results being disputed. The snag is that most opposition parties have never asked INEC to do this. They usually claim they were either restrained from access to collation centre or storm out of the centre. I believe you'll agree that disputing a result does not include storming out of the collation centre. As a matter of fact, s65 gives INEC 7 days to look at results declared and make corrections. INEC can claim that no one approached them to dispute any result. That's why the the phrase "Go to court" is as putrid as it is suspicious.

3. Like I maintained, calling up BVAS results is in case of dispute as laid out in s64(6). If there's no dispute, there's no reason to call up BVAS in INEC's view. Note that s65 clearly says results must be declared in conformity with INEC guidelines. Again, the guidelines mentioned IREV as the primary place to get results to ensure transparency. The courts trashed both guidelines and IREV!! So what evidence will a party have to institute a dispute if there's no IREV? All the discrepancies we've been seeing on irev in all the elections, has INEC ever come out to explain it? Why should they? The courts already trashed IREV. That's my point. If the courts had recognised IREV as is obvious from the EA, all other things would have fallen in place.

AnyanwuSK:
Repent of your sins, the Kingdom of God is at hand.

The end time predictions are now happening, from modern tech to globalization, destruction of old world order of this Age, race for microchip tech (Semiconductor) and fight for the control for future tech, emergence of MNK/IPOB, conflicts in Europe and Middle East that can be globalised.

All these in 1/4 of 21st cent. These are no coincidence!

Graced1:
I got a message on the site that I will receive a notification when the modification is approved. Someone here said it takes five working days, I'll wait till Friday. I hope I get a mail before then.

Kukutenla:
I'm not sure you understand how the electoral system works. First of all, no court will grant you an academic request like an order for INEC to implement any section of the electoral act when you don't have any evidence that they are not using it or have jettisoned that particular section. That's what is called cause of action in law. Your request will amount to an abuse of court process because what you're asking a conventional court to do is exactly what the election tribunals are for. Multiple cases decided up to SC have clarified that there's an assumption that elections are held in compliance with relevant laws until proven otherwise. What your request signals is that elections WILL NOT be held in compliance with electoral laws. I hope you can see the anomaly in that regard.
Secondly, what you should understand, and I've told you before is that it's the courts themselves that trashed s64 that you're holding on to by insisting that Irev is not captured in our laws. The whole idea of s64 is for direct transmission from the PUs to be used at each stage of collation to address any incongruencies. When the courts then say electronic transmission is not recognised by our laws and Irev is just like a viewing centre, s64 is killed. I suspect strongly that INEC's decision to jettison Irev in 2023 elections was based on legal advice of the loophole of the omission of the word electronic transmission in the electoral act. Most of us have easily forgotten that Irev was used in two elections before the general elections and the results were largely impressive. The first thing after the jettisoning of IREV was muddling up of the waters. The senate first came out and said they never allowed electronic transmission in the electoral act. At the PEPT, the argument turned to whether IREV was an collation system and if electronic collation was allowed or not in our laws. Meanwhile, the real crux of the matter which was largely ignored is the role IREV was supposed to play. By the framing of s64, IREV was supposed to be a last resort when figures collated manually was under contention. Note what the courts did. They summarily dismissed IREV!! The result is what we have been seeing since then. The courts claimed transmission and collation is manual in Nigerian electoral laws and further said IREV had no role in the electoral system. This is came courts that gave an illegal judgment that was misinterpreted by hallelujah boys as LG autonomy. Before that, same court ruled against CBN in a matter that was an abuse of court process and clearly against CBN act. The question is if the courts can take radical decisions on less important issues like LG autonomy or CBN currency swap, how do they become simply tone deaf and reticent in electoral matters that form the bedrock of democracy itself? INEC played safe in 2023 elections by jettisoning IREV and their guidelines and the courts backed them up. So why do we expect them to do better going forward? The battle for better electoral systems was lost at the courts after 2023 elections.
So even if PDP were to take your advice, IREV can't be tendered as evidence in court. That's what 2023 jurisprudence ensured.

Graced1:
Thank you for sharing. I was finally able to do it yesterday.

danijesus:
you are a Legend sir! Can u work with the PDP in Edo to get justice?

Factcheck0001:
but Edo people didn't complaining now

Y are Igbos crying more than d bereaved

Bobloco:
......abandoned IREV to favour APC


....

For instance, in Esan Southeast, the PDP’s original votes of 10,565 were increased to 14,199, but the APC’s votes were reduced by 9.99% from 9,237 to 8,398 in what appears to be a strategic adjustment.

In Ovia South West, the PDP’s numbers were slashed by 18.95% from 12,659 to 10,260, while the APC’s votes remained unchanged.

In total, the PDP’s vote tally dropped by 37.73%, from 314,676 votes recorded on IREV to just 195,954 votes in the final announcement. In contrast, the APC’s vote total increased by 8.58%, rising from 223,619 votes to 244,606 votes.


https://newsdirect.ng/exposed-how-inec-manipulated-edo-governorship-election-results-abandoned-irev-to-favour-apc/?utm_source=operamini&utm_medium=feednews&utm_campaign=operamini_feednews

Kukutenla:
How come none of the mainstream media is picking on this?
The conspiratorial silence is loud
BluntCrazeMan I told you INEC was not the problem
From this news, you can see that INEC allowed the upload of PU results, then still went ahead on Irev and announced a totally different result. They are able to do this because the courts up to SC has trashed Irev which has killed s64 of the EA automatically. I believe trashing of Irev by the courts was deliberate. It was to leave a leeway for this post-election rigging to still be viable

Factcheck0001:
y are u Igbos more concerned about Edo election

Y u carry am for head pass?

.
Can't u just move on?

Factcheck0001:
.....pokenosing into Wetin no concern u

naptu2:
Busola Kukoyi @KukoyiBusola