₦airaland Forum

senatordave1:
The electoral law clearly says transmit to inec server.eveb that guidelines clearly upholds the supremacy of the physical hard copy

And wbat is server

How many server beloging to INEC that you know

How many domain name of INEC that you know


How many subdomain name of INEC that you know

Instead of taking time to understand issue you will keep quoting what is not

IfnobeGod20:
But INEC never made reference to any csvsr in their 2023 Regulation for the conduct of the general elections. You're the one trying to manufacture what is not and court will never admit what is not written in the constitution, electoral Act or INEC guidelines for the conduct of the elections.

Here below is INEC reference to the use of IREVs for the conduct of the election. So stop manufacturing your intent to justify your assertion.

92. At every level of collation, where the INEC copy of collated results from the
immediate lower level of collation exists, it shall be adopted for 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

94. Where no hardcopy of collated results is available, the results, where possible,
shall be regenerated from the preceding level (Collation or Polling Unit) in
accordance with Clause 93 of these Regulations and Guidelines

You see IREVs boldly written on clause 93. I will be glad if you can point out where INEC reference your so called csvsr. I know you will still find way to deflate to another thing. Keep it up.

Leave him alone.

He's confused, he heard the word cavs (continous accreditation and voting syste) but did not know what are system components.

CVRS is continous Voters registration viewing portal, he knows nothing about INEC servers and various portal, he's just jumping up and down quoting different story, you will be surprised at his next reply to you, no correlation

senatordave1:
No evidence that collation officers ignored it.results from irev and ec8a will differ but by how widespread?

I can't help you further ire ooo

senatordave1:
My brother,the most important copy is the physical copy.any thing online is secondary

Sorry then i must say you don't know what us going on in the court.

senatordave1:
Honestly,I also want us to stop arguing about sections of the law that are ambiguous until the court makes pronouncement just as they made on double nomination.it is tiring and futile.sept seems far...but adeleke vs oyetola gave us a clue.but think about this if accreditation transferred to inec server from bvas is third hand,is it the one transferred to irev from same bvas that is first hand? Apply discretion here...

Tendering exhibits in court is one thing,linking it to specific parts of the case and making reference to it or expatiating on it on open court is another thing.obi has tendered result sheets hardcopy yet is silent on them.instead of him to have recounted them or commissioned a mathematician to analyse and tabulate them,he tabulated the irev copies .does that not tell you that tinubu actually won in both physical and soft copies? Unlike 2019,obi has not said in court or brought evidence or alternate results showing he won.instead,all his evidences are geared towards proving irregularities.

You're getting confused


EA gave INEC Power to set guideline.

And INEC Publicly announced the guidelines.

At many collation centre, result where tampered with which is totally different from PU result.

However by law INEC has made provision for onsite uploading to serve as check in such situation.
Those collation officers ignore such.

Now we are where we are

senatordave1:
You don't assume sir.we follow the law and this is why lp And pdp loses.send to inec server for not irev

Stop confusing yourself

You don't understand server and portal.

Did you understand domain and subdomain

Do you understand storage allocation

Do your understand server resources.

This are what you should know now.

BVAS can be used to access about 4 types of servers by INEC using different application on tbe BVAS.

Each application have its seperate root directory on tbe server.

There is cloud server which is why all INEC BVAS can upload and function from anywhere.

There is physical system for the offline server. Where testing is done and all necessary coding before uploading the writti code to form what the viewr see on the website.

So please get more information is that clear

senatordave1:
Are you aware that inec has csvsr or so which is the primary election storage and not irev? Irev is just for public viewership!

Primary storage for voters registrations which also have a sub-domain for voters accreditation because it the baseline.

However IREV is having its own server and storage partitions from the entire server.

senatordave1:
Are you aware that inec has csvsr or so which is the primary election storage and not irev? Irev is just for public viewership!

You know why I said this is not your field

CVR is voters registration server for INEC

You can view your own Voter card information on the csvr portal.

Senatordave01 INEC HAVE Different platforms and portal for different purposes.

So allow All petitioner to go with whatever's suite them don't bring in wbat You don't have grip information on.

What concerns csvr with IREV when they serve different purposes

senatordave1:
The electoral act states that they be sent to inec server and not irev

Where does IREV get it's data

Senatordave01 this is beyond your scope

senatordave1:
The electoral act states that they be sent to inec server and not irev

Senatordave01 this is not your field,


But let me ask you

1. What is server

2. What is IREV

3. what is could storage

4. How many server does INEC have and how do they link together

senatordave1:
Her report is not conclusive abd cannot be granted value

It's left for the panel to do that, however she has made her point while the presiding officer witnesses for PDP state their own also with their IT witness


So let the panel decide

senatordave1:
It is left for lp to conclusively prove so and not make assertions

Absolutely NO

Both PDP and LP have make their point and witnesses statement

It will interest you to know that as at this night 2023 Presidential election result uploading is yet to complete

Polling units
176846

Submitted results
167443

senatordave1:
She is not the maker of the document and therefore not competent to talk

It is left to INEC to come and prove her wrong.

So we wait for INEC to start their defense

senatordave1:
And the glitch could have happened internelly from inec local network.again,what she has is general report and not specific

As an IT expert what happened on that day is never a glitches but a deliberate act and it was targeted for a purpose and shift the blame on Technical glitch.

The Presidential election sumition link was redirected at no destinations but to error about AWS server error to cover up.

senatordave1:
They haven't proven anything.she admitted that the glitch could have happened locally on inec end without AWS knowing

She never said they

All they were trying to do is to implicate her to say external intruder can compromise INEC password to AWS from outside which she dodged

So she never said what you just mentioned above

seanfer:
Bro it makes a lot of difference... They are at advantage, because they have time to change or add more to their questions after listening to the petitioners cross-examination, they will know how intelligent or jittery the witness is and how to ambush the witness psychologically, and that is an added advantage ... I know what I'm talking about and any lawyer in this place will align with my position.....

It would have been better if the petitioner also shift to the other day and cross examine the witness together same day.

N3TRAL:
WAEC, NYSC etc are the organisations that issue the certification. They are legally vested with the responsibility of issuing certificates just like INEC collate results, announce them and issue certificates of return.

Neither WAEC nor NYSC are third parties. WAEC and NYSC have websites with data of millions stored in the servers of web hosting service providers.

They're are instances where WAEC or NYSC hold that they do not have the record of candidates in their custody. The candidate whose record is not found cannot approach the third party hosting service to prove that their record is in WAEC'S or NYSC'S servers.
According to the Evidence Act, only WAEC or NYSC or INEC records is valid evidence.

The evidence of the web hosting service provider here would only have nuisance value for social media accolades and nothing else.

Bringing Amazon to the case is of no value than bragging rights.

1. Amazon where subpoena

2. INEC website error report that day clearly implicates Amazon because the website refuse to open with error report at the blame door of Amazon

Hence Amazon need to clear the air on what happened.

N3TRAL:
You can't tender evidence from a third party in court. Only INEC's data is proper evidence. Amazon is a third party.

Say's what

WAec tendering certificate is what
NYSC tendering discharge certificate is what

Find another propaganda

AntiWailer:
Lol no mind the chronic M0r0ns.

So if I deploy application dt the developer did rubbish and it was not accessible or useable it means Amazon’s AWS is down ?

The level of ignorance and ability to write plenty rubbish with confidence is pitiable.

I'm not sure you understand the error message INEC website was giving during the check on IREV that day you will not be saying this thrash, you will then understand why it involves AWS

SangoOlukosoOba:
Ignore the long epistle.

How is Amazon responsible for the technical issue of INEC website?

Did INEC claim they had an outage, unavailability, storage or access issue?

INEC said “its website” had glitches. What is Amazon responsible for in this scenario?

I'm sure You know that service provider are involve in linking the website with BVAS nationwide.

Go back and read INec message on what happened that day

Go back and check if at all you have the time to even check thr error report the website was giving that dsy how INEC made it look like it's service provider glitches as error .message

Penguin2:
I told fergie001 that Tinubu was going to appoint a Yoruba man as COAS but he doubted me.

His argument was that Tinubu would appoint a northerner who would have hold of the army but I insisted it would be suicidal of Tinubu to hand the army to a northerner.

I do not think it’s tactical for any president to take the army away from his region. If I become the president tomorrow, my COAS might even come from my state😏.

Fergie001 though said HE doubted him Appointing SW, however he put Closing sentence of Someone with capacity that can control the Generals so it's too early to conclude that Last statement

senatordave1:
Lp and pdp are the one alleging non transmission

While You are the one claiming that they Said that They will only use manual.

So for me not say that You're spreading false information, redeem yourself now

senatordave1:
You didn't prove any thing.you must bring your proofs unit by unit

You're the one alleging here

senatordave1:
The commission says it chose manual.again,you cannot prove that inec did not transfer electronically

So be man enough to accept your goof

senatordave1:
Even if it is consistent,his analysis is incomplete as it was done with secondary evidence

You cannot run away from your shadows

senatordave1:
The commission says it chose manual.again,you cannot prove that inec did not transfer electronically

Where and when dis INEC say this

senatordave1:
The burden is on you to prove it not me

Here you go again, you are caught red handed on this one,the cobwebs entangled you already

Here is your claim, it's left to you to prove it not me, I've told you already with evidence that INEC did not, so be a man enough to prove your assumption

senatordave1:
The commission says it chose manual.again,you cannot prove that inec did not transfer electronically

senatordave1:
The burden is on you to prove it not me

You're the one that alleged

Here is your own word

senatordave1:
The commission says it chose manual.again,you cannot prove that inec did not transfer electronically

So i put to you that INEC did,but here you are saying otherwise so unless you want me to tell you that you're not a man of your word, prove otherwise or you accept that you goof on this one

senatordave1:
You will prove it unit by unit in court

Garfield1 I'm waiting for your press where inec said they had jettison IREV

senatordave1:
You will prove it unit by unit in court

I'm still waiting for your Acclaimed press on manual transmission and jettison of IREV

senatordave1:
The commission says it chose manual.again,you cannot prove that inec did not transfer electronically

INEC not transmit electronically as stipulated in the guidelines.

senatordave1:
The commission says it chose manual.again,you cannot prove that inec did not transfer electronically

That is a big lie, at no time did they say otherwise.

I put it to you to shiw where this was done before the election


Evidences aboud where they outlined the process.

So I put it out to you to show where and whenthis was done before the election

senatordave1:
Inec can interpret it to mean anything they like

INEC cannot interpret it to mean anything because they made several sensitisation video's which they keey circulating daily on their youthbe and twitter page on voting and collation process

senatordave1:
The electoral act supercedes the guidelines

EA Section 60(5)
(5) The presiding offcer shall transfer the result including the total number of accredited voters and the result of the ballot in a manner as prescribed by the Commission.

Do you understand the bolded