₦airaland Forum

helinues:
Election losers alway come up with ridiculous allegations, as a return officer, how will you be able to recognize someone complaining about the election process sincerely and the those who are ready to blame Jupiter for their life's woes

There are a lot of acceptable methods which the party agents can use in raising their disputes..

One of those acceptable methods is explained here below...

When agents makes a whole list of ALL THE SUPPOSEDLY FAULTY POLLING-UNITS, and the supposed TOTAL SCORES which they supposedly calculated without the supposed faults (which) they were complaining about, and then, highlighting the amount of discrepancies when compared with the results which the returning officer is announcing.

That is a very good method of raising disputes properly.

helinues:
If you are not a judge, how would you differentiate between a concerned person and someone joking around when it comes to election complaining. Again, remember, no loser will let go kit like that

Could you rephrase the emboldened phrase, so I can understand your question clearer

helinues:
I asked you a straight question.. Do you think a politician loosing an election will take it like that without complaining?

Remember that the actual topic of this thread is “Non Settling Of Raised Disputes”.

Politicians must always raise disputes.

If a politician raised disputes that are supposedly frivolous, then - for the sake of the LAW - they had to be treated according to the procedures.

Even if the politician is loosing the election, the Returning Officer will still have to settle the disputes first -- and still declare the results which showed that the politician who raised the disputes still lost the election..

..
There is nothing there.
There is no reason playing to the gallery -- just because the Returning Officer is afraid of the complaints of the politician who is loosing the election.
If there are disputes, let those disputes be settled according to the LAW..
Then, let them still declare that the loosing politician lost.

Let the Law be kept to the letter.
And let the looser still loose.

Guys..
Let's discuss this..

Racoon, Penguin2, Dalitigator, Garfield1, Bobloco, Fergie001

helinues:
The section you are referring to didn't solve a thing. Put yourself in the position of RO, would the losers accept defeat easily? In such case, what can you do about their situation

The Law Is The Law..

If he does nothing, then he breached the law.
...And that's the reason for this thread.

Says someone whose faction of PDP is still shaking....

helinues:
Politicians that the election results is no favouring will definitely cry foul.

RO is just one of the personnel if INEC. Any disgruntled politicians should gather their evidence of manipulation and go to court. RO can't really do much about election results dispute..

Please read the whole of Section 62(6) of the Electoral Act 2026..
Then proceed to also read Section 62(7) and 62(8.)..

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS....

..

Question-1.:
According to Sections 65(b) and 138(1)(a) of the Electoral Act 2026, if a collation officer refuses to treat the disputes that were raised at his level of collation, and tells the party-agents that “all the disputes would all be treated together at the final level of collation”; but then, when all the disputes were gathered at the final collation level, the returning officer still would not treat the disputes which were accumulated before him, rather he told the party-agents to “GO TO COURT and file all your disputes inside your election petition”,......
Would that be enough grounds for the cancelling the election?

Answer.:
Yes, this scenario describes clear non-compliance with collation procedures under the Electoral Act 2026.

Sections 62 and related provisions require collation officers and returning officers to address and resolve disputes/complaints raised by party agents at their level using polling unit data, accreditation records, and transmitted results — and not defer everything or dismiss them outright.

Telling agents to “Go To Court” without proper handling of the disputes that were raised violates the rules of the Electoral Act.
This can be a ground for an election petition under Section 138(1), which includes non-compliance. If the non-compliance is proven to be substantial, the court may nullify the election and order a fresh one.

Evidence which include witnesses, videos, and forms would be needed to prove this non-compliance in the court.



..

..

Question-2.:
If a returning officer refuses to settle the disputes that were raised by the party agents and tell them to “Go To Court”, then it means that the whole of the election is already flawed, since the breach by the returning officer affected the whole of the results of that election which he poorly handled (being that the returning officer is the final collation officer in that particular election).

Answer.:
Yes, that is true.

Refusing to resolve party agents' disputes at the collation/returning officer level breaches the Act's procedures as stated in Section 65(b).

This amounts to non-compliance under Section 138(1)(a); and thus, the returning officer saying “Go To Court” without resolving the disputes that were raised is actually a substantial ground to petition the election tribunal for the invalidation of the election.

If it substantially proven at the tribunal (with enough evidence) that those raised disputes (which were not treated by the returning officer affected) the overall results, then the election would be cancelled, and an order for a fresh election would be given by the tribunal.

PulaPower:
3 times?

How does their Pucci survives it?

They definitely have a way of keeping that one clean too

Misterone:
Oseni is too dumb! If the South Africans can play dirty, why can't we?.

Oya naa..
GO AND PLAY DIRTY WITH THEM NAA.

All those things Oshiomhole listed, who and who are supposed to be doing?
Why are they not doing it.??

What is the Senate doing about it.?
Why is Oshiomhole himself not raising it at the Senate?

I said it.

Many people will use this part of that interview to rejoice -- base in the fact that Oshiomhole successfully won Rufai on that particular issue..

Meanwhile....
I enjoyed that interview.
Oshiomhole talked very well on all the other issues that were raised in that interview.

He is really a man who understands the system very well, and he knows how to change the system for the better --- but somehow, he sounds as if he is not so willing to do those things that would change they system for the better

Mynd44

tk4rd:
This topic deserves to be on the front page

I have read the Electoral Act 2026 many times already.

I wish I can have a platform where I can educate people what a lot of the clauses and sections truly entail

helinues:
It's too late to be debating on the electoral act when the election is less than 9 months

You need to consider the logistics part from the INEC with whatever nee suggestions at the late hour

I am not really advocating for the amendments just because of the 2027 elections.
I am doing this for the future elections -- which might even have me contesting in one of them.

But then, I really wouldn't want to enter into politics for now, because I still don't trust "the elections" themselves.

Lalasticlala, Nlfpmod, Seun

seunmsg:
This OP will still come in 2039 to suggest amendments to the constitution that he feels will help Obi win. A bad workman always complains about his tools. That’s the case of this guy. If you like take the constitution to Obi’s bedroom to rewrite it in Ibo language, Obi will still not win.

I wrote a long post, I didn't even mention “Obi” inside it, neither did I make it about “Obi” or any tribe or language..

BUT HERE YOU ARE, MENTIONING “OBI” THREE GOOD TIMES,, AND EVEN MENTIONED “IBO” INSIDE YOUR SMALL COMMENT..

CodeTemplar:
Every single vote casted should be backed up by a NiN profile to show that the vote was genuine and should be open to a challenge by a printout proving the voter's choice on election day.

The voter’s choice is supposed to be hidden.
That is why it is called “secret ballot”.

But then, whether a person participated in the election or not - is not supposed to be hidden.
And that is what the BVAS Machines are supposed to be doing -- that is, keeping record of the individual identities of the persons who participated in the election.

Once anybody gets accredited, the system is supposed to send an acknowledgement text message and also appreciate the person for performing his civic duties.
In cases where laws are are passed in the future to reward persons who voted (or punish persons who did not vote), it is the BVAS Machines that can do the work perfectly.

I know that some people will come and start arguing with these things I wrote here..

But then, that wouldn't stop me from thinking and writing this way

HERE ARE SOME SUGGESTED URGENT AMENDMENTS FOR THE “ELECTORAL ACT 2026” WHICH WOULD MAKE THE ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION OF RESULTS TO BECOME MORE EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE.


Section 47 should have some additional sub-sections as listed below..

Sub-Section 47(4):
(This should be added after the already existing Sub-Section:47(3)...).
“As the election is ongoing, the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System or any other technological device that may be prescribed by the Commission for the accreditation of voters shall continuously synchronize with the IREV Portal and automatically update the IREV Portal continuously with the number of the accredited voters”.

*** (Just the way INEC made it to happen on the IREV-Portal during the Imo/Kogi/Bayelsa Election of 11th November 2023, when they successfully test-ran the automatic synchronization of the accreditation data between the BVAS Machines and the IREV Portal) ***

.

Sub-Section 47(5):
(This should be added after the newly added Sub-Section:47(4) above...).
“At the end of the election at the polling unit, the presiding officer shall electronically indicate the end of the election on the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System or any other technological device that may be prescribed by the Commission for the accreditation of voters, which shall also automatically reflect on the IREV Portal, showing the exact time when the presiding officer indicated at the polling unit that the election has ended. The indication of the end of the election by the presiding officer shall cause an automatic final synchronization between the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System and the IREV Portal”.

.

Sub-Section 47(6):
(This should be added after the newly added Sub-Section:47(5) above...).
“Tampering with the figures or data which is contained inside the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System or the IREV Portal is prohibited. Any officer or person who tampers with the figures or data which is contained inside the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System or the IREV Portal commits an offence, and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not less than 5 years without an option of fine”.

.

.

.
Here is the suggested modification to the already existing Sub-Section:60(5)

Sub-Section 60(5):
“The Presiding officer shall electronically transmit the results including the total number of accredited voters to the Collation System which will electronically tally and collate the various results that were transmitted from the polling units, as well as categorize the collated results according to the various higher levels of collation as may be required by the various collation officers or returning officer”.

*** (Just the way INEC made it to happen in 2018 when they successfully test-ran the “Electronic-Collation of Results” using the Smart Card Readers during the 2018 Ekiti Election on 14th July 2018, and during the 2018 Osun Election on 22nd September 2018 -- which yielded successful results even before the introduction of the IREV Portal) ***

.

.

.
.
Here are some suggested modifications to the existing Sub-Sections in the Section:62

In Section:62(4)(a); the referenced “Section 47(2)” should be modified to become “Section 47(4)”.

In Section:62(4)(b); the referenced “Section 60(4)” should be modified to become “Section 60(5)”.

In Section:62(5); the referenced “Section 47(2)” should be modified to become “Section 47(4)”.

In Section:62(6)(c); the referenced “Section 47(2)” should be modified to become “Section 47(4)”.

.

.

Here are some suggested additional Sub-Sections which should be included to the Section 62.

(This sub-section should come after sub-section 62(8.), before the current sub-section 62(9) which should subsequently become sub-section 62(10)...)

Sub-Section 62(9):
“When the collation of the results is completed, the collation officer shall electronically transmit the collated results and the total number of accredited voters to the IREV Portal before conveying the collated results to the next level of collation. Where the collated result is the final collated result, the returning officer shall electronically transmit the collated results and the total number of accredited voters to the IREV Portal before entering the final results inside the Results Declaration Sheet”.

Lalasticlala, Nlfpmod, Seun

nlfpmod:
Previous thread
https://www.nairaland.com/8645794/nuc-bars-honorary-degree-holders

They will later come for PhD holders

WhizdomXX:
I don't understand your last two paragraphs.

.

Very Simple..

The Constitution Is Higher and Stronger than the Electoral Act 2026.

MASTAkiLLAh:
No one can challenge the academic credentials of my mentor Major Hamza Al Mustapha, a man of timber and caliber, a man of capacity and the best person right now to steer the ship of our rudderless country

Ok naa..

He better not submit any forged certificate to the INEC ooo

AllBlack:
Nice piece but nothing concern Nigeria political warriors with all this one.

They are all ready to raise hell, butcher the world and finally go to court as a last resort.

We are going to have more politicians who would submit forged certificates to INEC again and go free with it ---- and even fraudulently use the clause of immunity to escape the law naa..

seunlayi:
WHY am I thinking about Tinubu, why must his name always cross my mind each time I see the word "forge".... Oh! He is my President jare......Make I mind my own business Jare...

HE IS STILL GOING TO FORGE AGAIN THOUGH...

..

I was actually thinking about the ENUGU STATE GOVERNOR (FORGED NYSC CERTIFICATE SAGA)

Tenses:
Court does not entertain forge certificate as a means to nullufy an election.

Unless you did not understand the original post, then you're bound to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Disqualification of a candidate due to Forged Certificate is a constitutional matter, and it is purely a “Pre-Election Matter”.

For the disqualification of a presidential candidate who presented ANY FORM OF FORGED CERTIFICATE TO THE INEC, the relevant section of the Nigerian Constitution that was breached is Section-137(1)(j)..

And for the disqualification of a governorship candidate who presented ANY FORM OF FORGED CERTIFICATE TO THE INEC, the relevant section of the Nigerian Constitution that was breached is Section-182(1)(j)...

And So On...
...

It is left for the legal advisers to the candidates to be wiser.

thegrinch:
.....

Inaccurate and overstated claims:

* "IMMEDIATELY" on IREV without ANY delays — The Act says "shall electronically transmit" but does not specify "immediately," "real time," or any strict timeframe (earlier drafts debated "real time" but the final version does not mandate it explicitly). No requirement that results "must appear" instantly while the PO is still at the unit. Transmission after signing is required, but practical delays (upload processing, server side, etc.) are possible.

If you were mandated to give two mangoes to “JOHN”, and you give the mangoes to “JEREMY”, you have not done what you were mandated to do.
And you could be punished for not doing what you were mandated to do.
In another situation, even if you drop the mangoes on top of JOHN’s table and you didn't let JOHN know that you have dropped the mangoes for him on his table so that he can confirm and acknowledge that you have done your own part of the delivery you were mandated to do, then you have not done the delivery yet.
If JOHN dares to say that he didn't see any mango on his table, then you could be punished for not doing what you were mandated to do.
The words of Section-60(3) didn't just stop at “shall electronically transmit the results”.
There is a specific destination.
If the results don't appear at the mandated destination, it is considered a breach.

* Automatic cancellation of polling units if transmitted but doesn't appear immediately — The Act does not say this. It prioritizes the signed EC8A in cases of failure. Tribunals/courts decide on evidence; non-appearance alone does not mandate cancellation. Polling units can be cancelled for overvoting or other specific reasons, but this scenario isn't automatic.

Yes. You are partially correct here.

Bear in mind that the courts would have to give the final interpretations to that particular sub-section.
But then, if a transmitted result does not appear where it has been mandated for it to appear, then it is considered a breach (like I said earlier), and breaches are not to be treated with soft hands.

* Era of "controlling officer" (ward/RATECH) approval is gone — The Act does not explicitly eliminate backend approvals or processing steps. It mandates transmission by the PO but doesn't detail the full technical workflow or prohibit INEC systems from having verification layers.

The same explanation which I gave earlier.
Whenever something is being done, and there is a Target, everybody waits at the target point in order to assess that thing that is being done.
Whatever the INEC like, let them do in-between the transmission and the results appearing on the IREV portal, but the IREV portal is very important here.

* INEC must "prove" communication failures or face automatic fault — The proviso allows the exception. In petitions, INEC would need to justify reliance on manual results (as in past cases), but the law does not require real-time "establishment" during the election or automatic cancellation. Burden of proof in court is evidentiary, not a blanket rule.

Like it happened in the past, efforts were made by the petitioners to establish that there were no communication failures on the day of the election. But the respondents were arguing that the IREV Portal itself and everything that has to do with it is not even necessary in the first place. So, there is no need to start explaining about the communication failure, or to be defending it.
But now that the IREV Portal is necessary, INEC cannot just come out and say that “there is communication failure” without actually showing that there really was a communication failure.

* "Very clear and unambiguous" with no excuses — The language includes a clear proviso for communication failure, which the post acknowledges but then minimizes.

The Proviso is already there. The post acknowledges that The Only Proviso mentioned in the Electoral Act is “Communication Failure”. This means that: any other reasons that arises on the election day that causes the bye-pass of electronic transmission for any particular Polling-Unit is considered a breach if the electoral act.
If that wasn't what you understood from what you read inside the original post, then I just explained further on it.

fergie001:
Bluntcrazeman, don't waste your time.

Those who are leaving citing ADC Court cases, are only looking for alibi. He cannot win, he has no case...

It is very clear

helinues:
They could have considered the emotions of their supporters as they fed them wrong information about the party crisis.

You see before the likes of Atiku joined ADC, Nafiu Bala was the National deputy chairman, when Atiku came with his own people to take over the party, they initially negotiated with all those who are currently holding the party position and reshuffling their position or compensate them

Bala in particular was promised Deputy Chairman of ADC in North East, before they even had their congress, they already shifted the same position to Babachir who is the current Deputy Chairman of ADC in North East. That was the genesis of ADC internal party issue.

If you are in Bala's position, what would you have done after they initially stripped you from the position you have been enjoying before them, promised you with another lower position and still eventually left you with nothing

Even though politicians are well known for telling lies back-to-back, Bala going to court was not the best option for him.
But since he is already in court, only a highly respected elder statesman can call him back to the negotiation table, and urge him to withdraw the case from the court

helinues:
Why are they blaming president Tinubu for their own self inflicted conflicts?

Wasn't that a deliberate mischievousness?

You want me to laugh now?

In politics, you do whatever you have to do.
(You cannot entirely rule-out some possibilities, or pay blind eye to some elements).