₦airaland Forum

Kukutente23:
Stop capping nonsense and forming learned. The documents referred to in s70-71 are result sheets abs not ballot papers. Do you dispute that?
The EA does not expressly require ballot papers to be signed and stamped but "marked" and you're not in a position to say the only means of marking is by signature of presiding officers when section 42 requires the ballot papers to be serialised instead.
Subsection 1 of 63 says ballot papers not marked should be rejected but Subsection 2 says if the returning officer is satisfied of its genuineness, he can accept it. The general law you claim can't be applied to this specific case because this case already gives an exception. What you're implying is that your supposed general law supersedes EA while the so-called general law is not in the constitution. How does that make sense.
S64 explicitly states that a ballot rejected must be put in writing by the Presiding Officer stating the reason for rejection. Such requirement is not laid on the returning officer in s63(2) which implies that any ballot paper seen in the box should be assumed accepted by the returning officer. If the framers of the law needed the returning officer to testify to the validity of the unmarked papers, they would have laid same burden on him as they did for rejected ones in s64.
The APC should have called the returning officer to confirm he did not accept those ballot papers. The burden is on them to show EA was violated which they did not by just showing unsigned ballot papers. Secondly, existence of such ballots even if found wrong should lead to cancellation of polling unit results. That's what EA says not sifting through ballot papers. Even the Osun tribunal cancelled whole PU results based on allegations of ballot box stuffing.
This idea is novel and I'm sure Appeal will overturn it because it's not standing on solid ground. The judgement simply said it can't make inference based on assumptions while the EA already did that for them in s63(2).
The burden of proof was not discharged by APC as far as s63(2) is concerned.

The presiding officers are inec staffs who should have been called by inec to substantiate sub 2.
Similar thing happened in imo where apc tendered polling unit results sheets showing that apc won 338 units while inec who had the burden to disprove this by tendering result sheets or proving that elections didn't hold there by providing the presiding officers to prove this.
The cancelled units mostly voted for nnpp for so it is the same thing.best case scenario is for the appellate to declare a partial rerun but uphold the voiding of 165000 votes

Threebear:
CeeC's people are slacking .

She might lose her second position.

To my Ade

Threebear:
I want an all female top 3 , but Adekunle said No. 😐

I told you

cartoon1001:
Kindly explain.
Please note that I am talking about the civil service job

The ex hos okunola and current one became his in their late 30s

Kukutente23:
And where in the EA does it invalidate unmarked ballots?
Mind you, unmarked can mean many things not necessarily the signature of the presiding officer. It can be the inec seal, the watermarks or even the serial number. EA never expressly stated that it must be signed. Only the result forms must be signed. The EA never gave such requirements for ballot paper

Subsection 1 clearly states that unmarked ballots are not to be counted except sub 2 is followed.a document that is not signed,stamped,dated or with inec seal cannot be said to be marked or valid especially if others are. A community reading of the electoral act and the evidence act has stated clearly what a marked document is.
Both result sheets and ballot are from booklets and are sensitive materials.if an unmarked result is voided why should ballot papers not be?
It is general law that any unsigned or unstamped document is worthless. See the decision of the apex court in lawan vs machina supra.the onus is on nnpp to rebut apc.apc challenged the ballot papers and tendered the ballot.respondents alleged that it is not true without tendering evidence.therefore apc allegations are deemed true

cartoon1001:
It is very unlikely to become a director at 38

Very possible in lagos

miceroms:
The Appeal court will invalidate it because only parties are on ballots not individuals. The Supreme Court earlier ruled that only a party member can challenge issues like that.
I am not sure of the minimum qualifications though.

And parties must have legal candidates.a party cannot just be on the ballot,it must be with a validly nominated candidate.candidature is made up of party and candidate

Rayban25:
I'm my humble opinion I think @Garfield1 should be hired for the job.

That guy can defend Tinubu from page 1 to 9 and do it intelligently unlike them helinues and the rest. He deserves it

Lol,my brother I cannot defend tinubu when he fumbles heavily.i rather remain silent.i tried telling you guys that Adesina,abati etc are the best.Tinubu should have retained dele alake as his special adviser

Kukutente23:
The ec40G detailing overvoting has nothing to do with the unsigned ballots
You keep mixing things up
Overvoting should lead to cancellation of results not sifting through. It's in the electoral act. There's nowhere in the Act where the tribunal is empowered to sift votes and choose which to cancel and which to not.
If they are from same polling unit affected by the ec40G report, the entire result is to be cancelled

They have cancelled the votes and deducted them accordingly which affects nnpp majorly.
Apc proved that ballots had no inec marks,let inec explain why they counted ballots without marks. an unchallenged evidence is deemed true

Kukutente23:
As I've said and the SC agreed in the Imo case, you don't prove that the EA was followed. It is assumed that the EA was followed until the other party can show that it wasn't so. The only way to show infraction against EA in this case by petitioner is to show the returning officer never accepted those ballot papers, or that they were fake. They did none of the above and left the tribunal to decide what to do with the ballot papers which they also took. I find that ridiculous.
Our judges need to show more circumspection in terms of these cases.
I'll expect Appeal to do the needful

63 is clear.petitioners show part A, respondents show part B.the standard of proof is on probabilities and preponderances.according to the judgment,results forms were not even signed by presiding officers

Kukutente23:
Check s52. Thumbprinting across line or two parties at once invalidates a ballot paper.
Like i said, it would have been ridiculous for the EA to declare a ballot invalid simply because the EA refused to sign when there are other means of identifying a genuine ballot paper, and secondly, overcrowded areas can have those kinds of issues. That's why s63(2) makes provision for the returning officer to identify the ballot paper as genuine or not.
The claim that INEC should have called the returning officers to confirm the validity of those ballots is needles because they never reported over voting or violence in those PUs so it should be assumed that the elections were free and fair there.

No.there is a difference between invalid votes and invalid ballot papers.section 52 is about invalid votes while 63 is invalid ballot papers.the inec returning officers already reported ballot stuffing and overvoting in form ec40G hence the deduction from NNPP since they were almost entirely nnpp votes

davodyguy:
Check now.

Got the first number wrong and sent 3000 to the number. 😂.

Na the person luck

Seen. thanks

Cc davodyguy.

kalan:
I think alliance will crown the winner. It's will be very slim this season. The lineup is very strong. Adekunle is a spoiler.. A type of PO for illebaye.

Spoiler how? Everyone has their unique fanbases

fergie001:
That is why I said some of these issues earlier canvassed will have been looked away by other tribunals.

I believe after reading the judgement, the tribunal pushed the burden of proof too much on the respondents which shouldn't be so. Even though, the respondents were lax in their defence.

I very well agree to the bolded. The doublespeak of the tribunal to uphold the preliminy objections of membership of a political party only to delve into the merits and now say the Candidate's qualifications to contest is unlawful is strange.

Yes,the tribunal were a bit hard on the respondents but you will agree that the petitioners discharged the burden of proof based on probabilities and preponderances of evidences. from the proceedings and judgment,documentary evidence was heavily in apc favour and EA 2022 clearly stated that oral evidence isn't necessary if documents prove manifest infractions.inec defence even helped apc.

On membership,the tribunal agreed that while membership and sponsorship is internal,they quoted a recent ruling by kekete ekun which says there's a narrow pathway for petitioners to challenge membership based on section 285(13) and 84(14). That's a candidate must have participated in all stages of the election process

Aguwanyi:
I no tell u before…
I didn’t like Venita for Ade..I just didn’t want her to get attention from Islanders..

I understand.if we ignored her,they would be no trend for her

Kukutente23:
First of all, those places were issues of invalid ballot were raised did not have over voting issues.
Secondly, if ballot boxes are snatched, the elections in the affected PU is automatically cancelled so you're scenario does not arise.
The grounds for invalidating a validly vote by ballot paper is clear and not being signed is not part of it.

So what are the grounds for invalidating the votes

ValarDoharis:
I rate solely based on how poorly conducted the elections were and the lack of transparency that went with them.

They were the mist litugated in Nigeria history

It was well conducted.even lp fans agreed that it was well conducted except for transmission.regarding that transmission,a lot of areas in Nigeria has poor network

scondy:
Shey u see say adekunle can never loose his fan base...we die there...we told u to unlook venita ..and Adekunle sef knew when to step away ..

True. I am relieved

Kukutente23:
Where is it written in the EA that you challenge only the votes of your opponent?
Even in the Adeleke vs Oyetola case, votes were deducted from both parties.
But that's not my main point. In a case of stuffing ballot boxes which APC is alleging, the right thing is to cancel the PU.
Secondly, the tribunal's claim relied me on s71 which was actually referring to result forms and not ballot papers.
That of ballot papers is taken care of in s63 as I've shown and it gives leeway for unsigned ballot to be accepted.

It is now left for the respondents to prove that subsection 2 was followed

Alheeri:
He dint betray him,he was angry soma dint tell him about the letter reason he nominated him..

I was right along that venita's fanbase is negligible.many of those votes are from mercy and ceec fans

ValarDoharis:
2023 was the worst considering the investment on INEC!

Then you are not rating it well.you rate based on opposition victories,incidences of righing,violence,suppression,cancelled votes,technological deployment,ruling party victory,under age voting.by the way,we have always budgeted huge money for inec.bvas is primarily for accreditation not transmission

Giel:
Angel: 15%
Soma: 14%
Venita: 11%

Omo soma pack better fans oh
I'm happy for him.
Sha let him stop dragging angel around. I don't like that.

That time angel was saved and people were attributing it mercy.
Are you sure it wasn't soma fans voting for her?

Venita only 11 percent.
Last time she was up without Ade it was 26%
So she dashed her 15%

Venita will be so annoyed that doyin was right Sha
Without Adekunle you don't have fans😂

It means Ade or pere probably had between 20%-40%.
Yes,soma has his own fanbase almost as big as Angel's own.it also means if only one of them were up,the other would have surely survived

Spy360:

But I told you na that you guys don't have a case.cant you see how apc prosecuted Kano polls?
Forgery is a criminal case and in electoral matters,it is almost impossible to prove.see what happened in enugu.it must be 100%

eepeepook:
Finale results.

1. Ilebaye
2. Mercy
3. Cee C
4. Adekunle
5. Pere
6. Cross

I will paste this with every write-up I make here.

Ade will come 2nd

OBAMAKILLOSAMA:
Dek is not actually happy he escaped eviction, he is just happy Venitta is gone.

True.i wished she was evicted earlier

davodyguy:
Baye leave Adekunle ooo

No,if not for venwitch,they would have sailed

Threebear:
Which people were evicted?

All these Elon musk boys

safarigirl:
All SomGel shippers can now go to IG Live to follow their ship.

The two ships down and out

100naira:
Angel evicted

Nooo.somgel evicted

Geezeem:
Venita was a walking content!

A walking bomb

ValarDoharis:
So you're absorbing INEC in all the electoral fraud of 2023?

No.90% of the fraud is from politicians as inec were helpless.in any case,2023 election was the best since 199)