₦airaland Forum

Sweetrosie:
Ask nicely and I will show you the way to tution free university education in Germany even msc.

Summer semester application starts this September

GetSenseNow:
Guy na bullshit you dey yarn.
Right now, there are many estates in Owerri and you want me to make it easier for you by narrowing it down to my particular estate.

Maybe you'll start monitoring my profile and in the next few months I might write something more particularly to my area and then you'll know which side of Owerri I stay, and then using a simple Google search you can know which estate/s are/is around there. Then I might write something else and you'll know the particular estate.
Then I might post a picture and you'll know the background or maybe post a picture of my car and you'll see a distinguishing feature and then start mounting surveillance.

No thanks, I no wan make u and your fellow criminals kidnap me

GetSenseNow:
So u go come kidnap me, abi?


No thanks, your eye no good

Sweetrosie:
Are you aware that Germany offers their Citizens tuition free university program, even to international students.

So I ask you, what are Nigerians benefiting from their God given mineral resources??

Basicend:
If he doesn't travel to USA, France etc. . their court injection don't have the power to compel him to pay monthly child support fees, if he stays here in Nigeria. . That only applies if he is requesting for their VISA etc.

Daddyyin:
No sea in the southeast

GetSenseNow:
So you mean it's a crime to carry out our legal rights of voting and being voted for? wow. shame on you.
In my estate in Owerri, a Yoruba man is our president. He contested against 2 Igbo man and he won. We were even trying to convince him to contest for councillor of this area and if he did he would've won because he's popular and that would've been a stepping-stone for higher positions for him. The honest truth is that you guys are extremely tribalistic but you try to cover it up with "being accommodating"

optimusprime2:
So let's say B.A.T's papers are deemed legit, you deliberately missed the part where INEC's entire process has been questioned?

The current evidence which have been admitted by court heavily indict's INEC & that is enough to potentially throw "some people" in jail.

Brilliant lawyers may wriggle B.A.T out of the petitions against him, but to be honest INEC is in a different can entirely. The ruling will definitely shock people.

seunmsg:
Thanks for your effort. I have read your extract over and over again without seeing where the law says only result directly transmitted from polling units to IREV [/b]should be collated since that’s the point you’re trying to make.

In interpreting a law, you can’t input what is not there into it. That is what you guys are trying to do. The law never said [b]transmission directly to IREV. The section you’re trying to rely on actually referred you to section 47(2).

Below is an extract from section 47(2) 47.

“The collation and declaration of election results shall be done at the following levels depending on the type of election:
(i) Registration Area - RA/Ward (Collation for all elections), including that of Councillor in the case of the FCT;
(ii) Local Government Area- LGA/Area Council (Collation for all elections), including that of Chairman in the case of the FCT;
(iii) State Constituency (Collation and Declaration of State House of Assembly Elections);
(iv) Federal Constituency (Collation and Declaration of House of Representatives Elections);

Now, let’s see section 48:
48. (a) An election result shall only be collated if the Collation Officer ascertains that the number of accredited voters agrees with the number recorded in the BVAS and votes scored by Political Parties on the result sheet is correct and agrees with the result electronically transmitted or transferred directly from the Polling Unit as prescribed in these Regulations and Guidelines.
(b) If a Collation or Returning Officer determines that a result from a lower level of collation is not correct, he/she shall use the result electronically transmitted or transferred directly from that lower level to collate and announce the result.
(c) if no result has been directly transmitted electronically for a polling unit or any level of collation, the provision of Clause 93 of these Regulations shall be applied.

So, what’s in clause 93? Extract below.

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.


When you read all the above together, you should understand the law and stop imputing what is not there. Collation is done manually and transmission to IREV is not a compulsory requirement for collation. In fact, collation and declaration of result can be done even if all that is available is hard copy of result sheets giving to police or party agents. None transmission of results directly from polling units for any reason whatsoever doesn’t invalidate the outcome of the election.

Again, direct transmission of results from polling units as envisaged under section 64(4) is not only to IREV. It is firstly about direct transmission of manual result sheets to the collation center, then direct transmission of electronically recorded result (BVAS) to the collation centre and lastly IREV. IREV is just a third layer confirmation against the manually transmitted result in case the electronically transmitted result (BVAS) is not available. Since BVAS were available, IREV was never needed for collation.

GoodGovernance:
Lazy youth,oya read:

64.—(1) The presiding officer shall endorse the word “rejected” on the
ballot paper rejected under section 52 (1) of this Act and for any other reason,
and the ballot papers shall not be counted except otherwise allowed by the
returning officer who may overrule the presiding officer.
(2) If an objection to the decision of a presiding officer to reject a ballot
paper is raised by a candidate or a polling agent at the time the decision is
made, the presiding officer shall add to the word “rejected”, the phrase “but
objected to”.
(3) The presiding officer shall prepare a statement on rejected ballot
papers, stating the number rejected, the reason for rejection and their serial
number, and he or she shall on request, allow a candidate or a polling agent to
copy the statement.
(4) A collation officer or returning officerat an election shall collate and
announce the result of an election, subject to his or her verification and
confirmation that the—
(a) number of accredited voters stated on the collated result are correct
and consistent with the number of accredited voters recorded and transmitted
directly from polling units under section 47 (2) of this Act ; and
(b) the votes stated on the collated result are correct and consistent with
the votes or results recorded and transmitted directly from polling units
under section 60 (4) of this Act.

danijesus:
Polling unit to polling unit results Obi won nationwide,it was at the local government level that Obi's vote was manipulated

danijesus:
Lies! Obi's lawyers wouldn't have brought those CTC of polling unit results to court if they hadn't done Thier calculations and discovered that what EYENECK announced was different from what reflected in the polling unit stations nationwide...a recount of the votes of polling unit will determine the actual winner of the election.

danijesus:
oga stop spreading falsehood,how did you knw Obi's calculation shows a Tinubu win? You go just dy lie up and down

GoodGovernance:
What is the essence of assembling SANs without senses?

As an "unlearned" person,all I needed to prove in court for both Atiku and Obi, is that the electoral process did not comply substantially with the electoral law as required in section 64(4) which states without ant ambiguity, that election results SHALL be transmitted DIRECTLY from polling units before any collation can be valid..They ignored that section only focusing on section 60.

All the witnesses examination and cross examination would be focused on section 64(4).

If the results of all the over 700,000 polling units were not transmitted directly from the polling units before collation,is that not substantial non compliance??

It is now clear that ab initio,there was a premeditated and grand conspiracy to rig the Presidential election alone.The NASS election results were transmitted directly from the polling units,in compliance with section 64(4).

INEC defense for non compliance for the Presidential election has so far been very contradictory and indicting. First they pleaded glitches ,then later, their lawyers came with a publication suggesting that INEC was no longer going to upload results to IREV.

So why upload only NASS results ?

I would have won this case by pleading just for cancellation of the presidential election,with only N25 million legal fees,only me as the lawyer.

IamV:
[Ikechukwu SAN hands over to the Dr Livy. Dr Livy Uzoukwu SAN now informs the court that 'That is all for the case of the Petitioners' ]

^{Peter Obi have just closed his case at the Election Petition Tribunal 2023}

IamV:
[ The 2nd & 3rd respondent is about to cross examine the witness ]

[2ND AND 3RD CROSS-EXAMINATION]

Q. you said you manually recorded the result, did you sign it?

A. Yes

Q. I believe all the other party agents signed also

A. Yes they did

[That will be all for the witness & the 2nd & 3rd respondent ]


[ The 4th respondent is about to cross examine the witness]

4TH RESPONDENTS CROSS-EXAMINATION


Q. At the conclusion and after all party agents have signed, you gave their representatives copies

A. Yes I did

[ That's all for the witness & the respondents]

Nfora:
My general impression following this case, is that there was a pre-meditated and grand conspiracy by INEC in conjunction with APC, to rig the presidential elections.

My reasons:

1.National Assembly elections were transmitted directly from the polling units in compliance with section64(4) of the electoral act, but the presidential was not. INEC pleaded glitches, right?

2.The same INEC that pleaded glitches ,is also telling us in court through its lawyers, that there was a publication before the election, that indicated that INEC would no longer upload the results electronically. But on election day, the national assembly results where transmitted directly from the polling units in compliance with section 64(4).



(Now, just thinking aloud : Are the so called SANs of Labour Party, so daft as not to emphasis section 64(4) of the electoral act, which specifically states that results must be transmitted directly from the polling units, in their petition?)

femisplash:
Look at sabi lawyers using court judgement as evidence in court.

IamV:
Q. You mentioned that you relied on evidence of forensic experts

A. Yes

Q. Your deposition was made on March 20th

A. Yes

Q. Are you aware that the final reports of your expert was in May 2023

[ The witness was quiet ]

Q. You'll agree with me that the issue you brought to court were transmission of irev not snatching of ballot box

A. Our case was on 2 grounds, double nominations and forfeiture.

IamV:
Q. Look at Exhibit PCQ, those are receipts obtained For certified true copies of INEC documents which were tendered here

A. Yes

Q. Please confirm some of the documents were obtained 6 April, 25 April, 31 March variously like that

A. I can see 15, 16, 31 March, 4 April, 2120 March,... They are receipts of payment for documents.
Q. In Para 102, you rely on the documents mentioned there to make your depositions

A. Yes

Q. Documents mentioned in Para 102L,M, N,O,V,Y,Z,AA,CC,JJ,MM,OO,RR were not tendered in this proceedings

A. We are in process of tendering them

Q. You were not able to tender all

A. Yes

senatordave1:
The summary is that obi team is depending on the expert report of prof Eric which shows tinubu won but there were a lot of irregularities.in other words,obi did not win.they just want a rerun

ANNIP:
How many observe that TIENECK has more SAN than even the petitioner and 2nd/3rd respondents combined.
Meaning the have enough funds stashed somewhere to defend their illegality!

IfnobeGod20:
Did you read my commit very well? I said, more like a hostile witness because of the way he was countering all questions asked.
Please read very well before you start reading meaning to comment.

Fashionista01:
I missed your update yesterday and it made me restless. Thank you for continuing today. God bless you.

GoodGovernance:
Have you read 64(4). Combined with 60?

I would be disappointed if you have a legal background.

GoodGovernance:
It seems you do not even understand the meaning of certified true copy.

When you certify blurred document as a true copy of the original,what does that imply?

That the original too is blurred!!!

This is big indictment on the part of INEC.

Sheggy13:
The bolded will be used to rubbish whatever the LP cybersecurity expert brought forward because he misinformed the court that this ISO standard is in the NITDA Act but here is a NITDA IT staff on subpoena saying there's nothing like that in the NITDA Act.

GoodGovernance:
That is where substantial non compliance comes in.

I wonder why people are ignoring section 64(4) of the electoral act.

The failure to transmit results FROM the polling units in all over 700,000 polling units,contrary to provisions of 64(4),is enough evidence for substantial non compliance with the electoral total act.

Cancellation of the election, is more likely than than declaring Obi the winner.

senatordave1:
Guy,you are intelligent and objective.i don't care who you support but you created a new vista,another perspective.
You have to prove massive or widespread irregularities to warrant cancellations and you must further show how it affected the margin of lead since the electoral act demands substantial noncompliance not in pockets.
Lp made a mistake.the import of different result copies is for crosschecking and confirmation or comparison.it is a checking mechanism to determine the true figure.yiu cannot determine based on one copy alone.see uzodinma vs ihedioha supra.see ajasin vs omoboriowo,onoh vs nwobodo,uduma vs arunsi..
The friendly nitda deftly or subtly absolved inec by saying no law mandates or binds them with inec.if actually he was officially sent by the dg,he would have brought an official permit.the DG with his job on the line cannot say he granted the staff leave

Majesty7:
THANK YOU!!! I don't understand why others are not reading it even including the guy giving update.

Very laughable scenerio. He did the findings himself and concluded by himself. If the judge is merciful, he should be sentence to a very long term. Others would have sentence him first to a psychiatric hospital and if confirmed well, he will be sentence to death

GoodGovernance:
Issue:

INEC certified blurred result sheets.

So how did INEC determine the winner when the electoral act requires that the IRev results must tally with what is collated ?

18,000 blurred results from polling units.

There are averagely 500 voters in a polling unit,equating to 9million voters!