garfield1: The court has already settled the shettima issue...the fct issue will need arguments and counter arguments but I know the court has already made up their minds. The drug issue also needs a lot of arguments and some witnesses from america but it is a dead case as he's not an ex convict and even if,10 years has lapsed... The supreme court didnt say you need irev to prove overvoting.it said bvas and voters register.unfortunately, obi couldn't access bvas.in proving that you won,you will need primary results which is ec8a and agents copies plus police copies.irev is secondary result.therefore,vote recount and forensics are the only thing left
I'm not sure you read the Osun judgement for understanding you only cherry picked what you want.
I think you need to read the osun supreme court judgement but this time around for a better understanding
First, Apapa’s stupid lawyer was denied appearance by the Presidential Election Petition Court for representing an unknown entity. Both the lawyer and Apapa left in shame.
Now, the judge in Kano has denied giving the Kangaroo judgment you guys were celebrating even though you knew it was deficient.
Must be a bad day for BATists.
I don’t envy you people at all!
All this Kanngaroo judges, should be seriously purnished
Penguin2: Now the elections are over and attention has shifted to the different Election Petition Tribunals across the country, it is not out of place that we understand and try to make sense, to the best of our knowledge, the issues at play at the tribunals, and what to expect even though we do not know what to expect.
In this thread, I want us to consider INEC Guidelines and how much weight they carry in determining what the judges might say about the different cases before them.
It became imperative to talk about INEC Guidelines because different elements seem to have held different positions as to the relevance, power and place of INEC Guidelines as regards the different petitions in court.
Now, for explication purposes, we need to understand that the judges at the different tribunals, are going to rely on four documents to arrive at whatever ruling about any case as regards any Election Petition. These documents are:-
1) The Constitution 2) The Electoral Act 3) INEC Guidelines and 4) Judicial Precedents (of the Supreme Court in most cases).
1)They are going to rely on the constitution because it is the grund norm of all other laws in Nigeria and the document whence INEC derived its powers.
2)The Electoral Act derived its powers from the constitution and is a body of laws guiding the conduct of elections in Nigeria.
3) INEC Guidelines (this is our topic of interest): Now, the constitution that established INEC, gave it the power to formulate rules and principles/guidelines that would guide every season of electoral contest. These are called “bye laws” if you please. Now, INEC being an umpire which is supposed to be unbiased is envisaged by the constitution to issue these guidelines to parties and candidates informing them of the modalities and the rules that will guide the conduct of the election without prejudice to the constitution and the Electoral Act. What this means is that INEC has no powers or whatsoever to initiate any guideline that would be at variance with either the provision of the constitution or that of the Electoral Act. Any such act would amount to nullity.
Now, are INEC guidelines justiceable in law? Can a candidate or candidates approach the tribunal on the basis of INEC failing to adhere to its own guidelines? To that I leave us the video of Michael Aandokaa, Former Minister for Justice and Attorney General of the Federation, where he explained that the Supreme Court has ruled in previous cases that INEC guidelines have constitutional flavour.
What this means is that since INEC is an establishment of the constitution and exercises powers granted to it by the constitution, whatever guidelines they issue is enforceable in law as they can equally be taken as law.
4) Lastly, Judicial Precedents. This is how (superior) courts have decided electoral matters before which is usually binding on lower courts, in most cases, especially if the facts of the matter are the same. What this means is that the Governorship Petition Tribunal for instance cannot give a ruling that totally deviates from what the Supreme Court has previously ruled about a similar case with similar circumstances.
In conclusion, the aim of this piece is to educate those who are making arguments that tend to suggest that INEC failing to adhere to its own guidelines is without consequences.
Again, nowhere in the world does an umpire change the rule of the game in the middle of the game. And worst still without communicating such change to contestants in the game.
The referee in a football match cannot come into the game and say that because he has the final say in the outcome of the match, that there was technical glitches and VAR will not be functioning, therefore he has the right to decide that throwings are corner kicks and vice versa.
Once INEC set the guidelines for the election and communicated same to parties and candidates and the general public, it became binding on them to follow those guidelines to the letter. And any default thereof becomes fatal on the outcome of the election unless otherwise proven.
Penguin is a bird of reason.
Mynd44 Nlfpmod Fergie001 Garfield1 Engineerboat
The electoral law gave INEC a delegated power to exercise for a successful election.
It's left to the Justices now to interpret such power
garfield1: I just finished reading atiku's petition,can't find obi's own.atiku own is worse than that of 2019.in 2019,he focused on 12 states but now he focused on zamfara,sokoto,rivers,kogi and focused on just few lgas and few units making wild and generalized claims. He is not claiming victory like 2019 with alternate figures. but asking for a total or partial rerun or disq of tinubu and him declared winner or a rerun between him and Tinubu. He claimed cancelled votes exceeded the margin of lead but couldn't mention the new figures.he said there was zero accreditation in 6090 units and overvoting in 9000 based on server reports.dino is his star witness.Instead of going through polling unit reversal booklets and getting a copy,he is asking inec to produce them.I think his main focus would be on violation of guidelines and fct issue.funny enough while the constitution divided the requirements into two,atiku added fct 25% as no 3 requirements
seunmsg: My point is very clear except you want to keep pretending that you don’t understand. Not uploading results immediately from polling units cannot be a ground for annulling any result in as much as what were eventually uploaded is not significantly different from what is on BVAS and declared by INEC.
Again, please note that SUBSTANTIAL is the key word when weighing irregularities and non compliance with INEC guidelines. Over voting was validly proved in Osun election but Supreme Court agreed with INEC and PDP that the over voting that occurred in some polling units were not substantial enough to alter the outcome of the election.
So, three things have been settled today. 1, not uploading results immediately from polling units is not relevant in as much as what was eventually uploaded is not different from what is on BVAS, the primary source of election data. 2, if there are conflict between results generated on IREV and results on BVAS, the result on BVAS takes precedence since it’s the primary source of election data. 3, even if irregularities were proved, it still won’t matter except they are substantial enough to affect the final result.
You are only contradicting, what You are saying,
The constitution gives INEC power to exercise relating to election guidelines.
So you cannot jettison Form EC8A which is the backbone of the Election result snapped on BVAS for uploading to IREV. So stay tune and follow the court proceedings of the election
seunmsg: Believe whatever makes you happy. The court has made it clear that BVAS is the primary source of evidence for election data. In as much as the declared result is inline with what was uploaded, arguments such as results were not uploaded from polling units holds no water. It is dead on arrival already. If the result on BVAS is not substantially different from what was declared by INEC, it stands. Period!
Listen again
BVAS is the primary source of data (Accrediatation and Election uploading)
Form EC8A data must correlate with what s on BVAS and what is on IREV
So your argument is once result declared corresponds with BVAS accrediation, now I get You but you fail to realise that every party agent have copies of signed form EC8A
garfield1: Primary evidence for proving overvoting is bvas machine and voters register.what obi has is server report and no voter register.primary results are irev and it shows tinubu won.
You need to expand your arguement on your lonely argument on IREV result.
PU agents have their result which is ratling you and you know it yourself
But it god you continue on your arguement about Obi or Atiku submitting only IREV which is false
seunmsg: Believe whatever makes you happy. The court has made it clear that BVAS is the primary source of evidence for election data. In as much as the declared result is inline with what was uploaded, arguments such as results were not uploaded from polling units holds no water. It is dead on arrival already. If the result on BVAS is not substantially different from what was declared by INEC, it stands. Period!
For your information petitions are based on many grounds.
Your argument on uploading to IREV is just a sub section of a ground not even main ground so like i will say expand your search
seunmsg: They did not dismiss IREV, they only said BVAS is the primary source of data to prove Election Day irregularities. Irrelevant argument such as results were not uploaded on IREV from polling units holds no water in as much as what is eventually uploaded is in-line what’s on BVAS.
From Peter Obi’s petition, it’s obvious they don’t even have a substantial number of form EC8A as they don’t have agents in most polling units. They may get lucky with Rivers if what’s on IREV is the same with what’s on BVAS. But then, that’s where it ends for them. Rivers alone is not enough to change the outcome of the entire election.
Results from various states uploaded on IREV have been calculated by different interest groups including Mark Essien of the Obidient movement and they all ended up arriving at Tinubu’s victory.
Finally, to prove rigging, a candidate must produce the direct result on BVAS from over 170k polling units. I will be waiting for how any candidate will do that successfully.
You can't conclude because each of tbe petitional have their evidences in their hand
Exc2000: BVAS accreditation is legal and recognize by Electoral laws, Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
IREV database online portal and Website isn't recognize by the electoral law, Supreme Court or any court ... It is simply an INEC guideline
The judgement does not invalidate IREV
Oyetola does not bring up any case on Form EC8 oyetola argument was on voters accreditation. IREV is result viewing portal and verififcation portal and it's not for accreditation
seunmsg: For anyone to prune over voting or rigging, only direct data on BVAS will be accepted as primary source of evidence. Nonsense argument like results were not uploaded straight from polling units is useless.
In as much as the declared result is substantially in-line with what’s on BVAS, it’s a done deal.
Peter Obi and Atiku’s results were not uploaded on IREV argument has been trashed even before the commencement of the case.
Finally, except there is a very substantial and widespread irregularities, Supreme Court will always side with whoever is declared winner by INEC.
The 2 case in reference are different
Oyetola is saying I DON'T NEED BVAS BECAUSE I ONLY NEED INEC DATABASE BUT THE COURT SAID NO, YOU NEED TO PRESENT THE BVAS AS THE ACTUAL MEANS OF THE UPLOAD WHICH MUST BE CORRECT
However in PEPT It's a case of WHAT YOU GAVE TP PARTY AGENT IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WAS ANNOUNCED AND ALSO IN YOUR GUIDELINE AS A CHECK AND BALANCE IREV WAS NOT DONE.
Afamed: Stop misleading people with your grammar. The electoral act never gave credence to transmission of results electronically. What act says is simply. That INEC shall determine the mode of transmission . It did not mandate INEC to transmit electronically
Read Yoru statement Again, this time around slowly
garfield1: Obidients are trying to elevate the fct above other states.if it is mandatory to get 25% in fct,then it must be mandatory in all states.do not be deceived by the And.And In is even more specific.And can also mean including.if you know how the law works,you won't push this further
At this point i think it is safe to say that you shukd allow the court do their job rather than this speculative on what you can Authoritatively ascert on
garfield1: You are not getting it.bvas only contains accreditation figures and pictures of result sheets taken by inec.it does not show details of who a voter voted as voters voted manually not through bvas.again,obi never inspected the bvas machines directly because inec needed to reconfigure them for guber polls.he only relied on server reports which is incomplete.therefore,forensics and recount are the only ways to prove who voted who
Isn't it tbe same thing your party is trying to do at Adamawa which you fully support and telling other parties to go to court not minding the fact that all PU agents have the original result with them.
Isn't that the reason you keep shouting no to electronics transmission because you want to write Results
Politics › Re: PEPT: Obi, Labour Party To Call 50 Witnesses by engineerboat(m): 9:14pm On May 20, 2023
