₦airaland Forum

Bigchristo:
stop posting fake news there’s no credible source where this information came from, in as much as I want such thing to happen but I won’t be part of peddling fake news

garfield1:
Oga,this is the same.iremember it well,it trended here.you are recycling rumours

garfield1:
A lot...from apc governor's defecting to pdp in the north to buhari not attending tinubu campaigns to tinubu not graduating from CSU and tinubu being a convict.

By the way,this news came out early this year.why are you bringing it out again? Is this your own pattern of propaganda

BadMaster:
If David Hundeyin or Jackson Ude tell their followers today that Tinubu is dead, and that the person ruling Nigerian is an imposter, they will believe it 100%. If you want to know how idiotic and unintelligent their followers are, just visit their social media pages.

MissLeslie:
They called it palliative, those people have been surviving without the said 8000 before. Just to support them.

LegendHero:
Lol 😂 you guys are jokers?

Have you ever been to the USA embassy before? Even when they deny you visa, they won’t tell you the reason besides just handing you the blue paper.

USA embassy will never disclose those they banned to anyone so how did the fake news peddler called Jackson Ude got the info? You mean USA embassy will tell a third party that we denied the judges because of xyz?

Many are truly mad in Nigeria.

Throwback:
You are a bird of delusion.

You are ready to believe any fake news however outlandish, as long as it is suitable propaganda for your lost cause.

You deserve a lengthy ban for breaking the below rule.

8. Don't post false information on Nairaland

tinsel:
This boy you are disgracing yourself here every day. Go and take a rest and look for a job.

jumper524:
You check the profile of those commenting on this twitter Jane news and you begin to question their sense of reasoning. Tomorrow they'll go to bear parlour and be respected as one who have Acess to Internet and authentic news.

Iamgrey5:
Judgement is an opinion of the judge based on his or her understanding of the law, you can always disagree as is the case when some judges disagree with majority ruling. However, no country punishes judges for giving an opinion.

Iamgrey5:
How is this possible?

The United States can help us interpret our constitution for us!

Only our judges can choose to interpret our constitution the way they understand it.

U.S PLACE VISA BAN ON CJN ARIWOOLA, NWEZE, MUSA DANTTIJO, THREE OTHERS
The U.S Government has placed a visa ban on the Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, Olukayode Ariwoola, and six others members of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. Amongst them are Justices Musa Dattijo Mohammed, Centus Nweze all of the Supreme Court.
The Justices were billed to attend a Seminar in the U.S and were all denied entry.
Justice Kudirat Kekere Ekun was the first to be informed of her ban.

garfield1:
Obi failed to prove widespread rigging like buhari did in 2007.

Democracy is a marathon, and Kenya just delivered one of the most decisive victories for African democracy in recent history. Marathons are, after all, our thing.

In a 4-2 decision, the Supreme Court determined that the recently concluded presidential election “was not conducted in accordance with the Constitution and … is invalid”.

In practical terms, this means that Kenyans will have a second presidential election within the next 60 days – expensive in terms of money and time, but worth it for a clear and decisive declaration that democracy in Kenya is maturing.

The August 8 vote was a deeply flawed election. Yet weighty assumptions at home and abroad about how democracy is supposed to work in Africa prevented many from seeing that.

Critics were accused of being spoilers or “perennial losers”. If they pointed out one of the many problems of the electoral process, they were labelled “tribalists”, or overly demanding. Apparently, African citizens should be happy about “good enough” elections and shouldn’t demand more. The public was told that credible elections are simply not for this part of the world. The eyes watching Kenya’s election were so focused on the prospect of violence that they were prepared to force a clearly problematic process onto Kenyans.

The ruling of the Supreme Court exposes how faulty this minimalist logic is. It underscores that what the elections commission, international observers and some international press wanted to write off as “irregularities” were actually significant procedural failures that undermined the core of Kenyan democracy.

The discontent and criticism of the election were never about Raila Odinga losing it as some have alleged – it was about having a winner who was worthy of the title “democratically elected”. And the Supreme Court found that the Independent Elections and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) simply did not deliver on basic democratic principles of transparency and rule of law that should guide any election.

With this ruling, the court has vindicated advocates for credibility, arguing that Kenyans deserved free, fair and credible – not just “good enough” – elections.

The court has 21 days to deliver a detailed ruling, but it seems one of the main problems with the election was IEBC’s ignoring many aspects of the Constitution and electoral law. Fundamentally, this ruling was about reminding the IEBC that it cannot pick and choose which parts of the constitution to obey.


In court, lawyers for the IEBC struggled to give good reasons about why the core tools of electoral management dictated by law and publicly promised to voters were not actually used during the election. For example, IEBC lawyers shockingly argued that the tallying website public.iebc.or.ke on which local and international reporting about the election relied was “not the public portal” that the IEBC promised, and they never told the court what that website was and why it existed.

The ruling was also about glaring errors that, on one hand, the IEBC argued were not enough to alter the outcome of the election, but on the other, critics argued, compromised the integrity of the whole system. For example, the IEBC conceded that they did not use the electronic transmission system they were required to, and instead relied on text messages and photographs of manually filled forms as sources of information.

The process of tallying was also problematic because the IEBC seemed to ignore much of the law regulating it. The commission lawyers argued that the forms used for reporting results from the different regions were all available in time for the announcement of the results on August 11. Yet as late as August 14, the IEBC was still asking the opposition to “be patient” while it tries to make the forms available to them for verification. How was the final result generated on the basis of forms that were not available until several days after the election?


A number of the forms provided by the IEBC also didn’t have serial numbers or bar codes, and some were simple lined paper with numbers scrawled on them. Lawyers for the IEBC conceded these irregularities but argued they were too small to have affected the whole outcome. But in court, the chief justice pushed back: “If some of the forms have bar codes, then shouldn’t all of the forms have bar codes?”

After all, this was one of the most expensive elections in the world. Almost $500 million or $28 per capita in taxpayer money was spent on the premise that the process would be brought closer to perfection. Wasn’t the money enough to get barcodes?

But beyond establishing high democratic standards for elections in Kenya, this ruling was also about reaffirming judicial independence. It put Chief Justice David Maraga in history books as the first African chief justice to oversee the annulment of election results.

Less than a year into his term, there were already strong indications during a testy pre-election period that judicial independence was of utmost importance to the Maraga-led court. At least three times in under 12 months, the chief justice and the judicial service commission issued statements defending the independence of the judiciary after attacks from the president and the National Assembly majority leader.

All in all, the September 1 ruling was good news for Kenyan democracy. “The greatness of a nation relies on its fidelity to the Constitution and adherence to the rule of law”, said Chief Justice Maraga, giving Kenya’s democracy marathon a second wind, a massive victory that hopefully translates into a better process and stronger democracy in Kenya and beyond.

Christistruth03:
Old Old News

Fake Breaking News

garfield1:
The apex court clearly said widespread irregularities.was there any in Nigeria?

Depriest2020:
So who later won the rerun election? Was it the same person the electoral body first (wrongly) declared winner, or another winner emerged? Na the thing wey I wan know be that.

Malawi’s Supreme Court on Friday in a unanimous decision upheld an earlier court ruling that annulled President Peter Mutharika’s narrow election victory last year.

A new election will now be held on July 2, for which three candidates, including Mutharika, filed their nomination papers this week.

The Constitutional Court in February cited “widespread, systematic and grave” irregularities when it annulled the vote that returned Mutharika to power in the southern African nation last May.

Mutharika, 79, and the electoral commission later appealed the Constitutional Court’s decision.

In its ruling on Friday, the Supreme Court said, “The various breaches undermined the duties of the Malawi Electoral Commission and grossly undermined rights of voters. None of the candidates obtained a majority.”

It added that the electoral commission should not have appealed, as doing so showed it was taking sides.

“The conduct of the electoral commission left a lot to be desired,” Justice Frank Kapanda said. “There was a lack of seriousness and incompetence.”

Reporting from Harare, Al Jazeera’s Haru Mutasa said the top court found Mutharika’s appeal “clearly unprofessional and embarrassing”.

“Mutharika has always said last year’s presidential election was free and fair but the Constitutional Court said there just too many irregularities and some results were changed using typewriter or correction fluid.”

In his appeal, Mutharika said the judges had “erred in law”.

“We find that the first appellant [Mutharika] was not duly elected to the office of the president,” said Kapanda, one of seven judges who read out the ruling in the capital Lilongwe.

Nomination filed

On Thursday, Mutharika filed his nomination papers for the July rerun alongside his new running mate Atupele Muluzi, the 41-year old son of former President Bakili Muluzi, who ruled Malawi from 1994 to 2004.

“Together we will be the bridge to the future, together we will win this election,” the president told supporters in the city of Blantyre.

Only three of 10 expected candidates have presented credentials to run in the upcoming poll.

Opposition figures Lazarus Chakwera and Saulos Chilima filed their nomination papers on Wednesday.

Mutharika was declared the winner of the disputed elections with 38.5 percent of the vote.

Chakwera’s Malawi Congress Party came a close second, garnering 35 percent, while Chilima’s United Transformation Movement came third with 20 percent.

The two parties have joined forces under Chakwera’s banner to maximise their chances of unseating the president.

Malawi's opposition leader Lazarus Chakwera has won the country's rerun presidential vote, officials say.
He defeated incumbent Peter Mutharika with 58.57% of the vote in Tuesday's poll, the electoral commission announced late on Saturday.
In February, Malawi's constitutional court annulled Mr Mutharika's victory in the May 2019 election, citing vote tampering.
The country was bitterly divided in the run-up to this week's election.

It is the second African nation to annul a presidential election over irregularities, after Kenya in 2017.
How brave judges rejected a 'second-rate election'
A quick guide to Malawi
Following the official result on Saturday, Mr Chakwera said his victory was "a win for democracy and justice," adding: "My heart is bubbling with joy."
His supporters took to the streets of the Malawian capital, Lilongwe, sounding car horns and letting off fireworks.
Mr Chakwera is expected to be sworn in on Sunday.


Malawi's new leader will look to heal the nation

By Will Ross, BBC News

This is a hugely significant moment in Malawi's political history, and is evidence that neither the courts nor the electorate were prepared to be bullied or influenced by presidential power.
Other countries in Africa have had elections annulled - it happened in Kenya a few years ago - but for the opposition candidate to then go on and win a rerun is unprecedented.

Outgoing President Peter Mutharika described Tuesday's vote as the worst election Malawi has ever had.
Peter Mutharika's narrow victory in last year's poll was cancelled by the Constitutional Court after evidence emerged that correction fluid had been used to alter the vote tallies. He then turned to the Supreme Court for help. Judges there came under a lot of pressure but stood firm. And now the majority of Malawian voters have rejected him.
Mr Mutharika is now crying foul and may mount a legal challenge, but the people of Malawi have chosen Lazarus Chakwera as their next president. The Pentecostal preacher and former theology lecturer will first have to heal a nation that's been through many months of political turmoil.

Speaking ahead of Saturday's results, Mr Mutharika said that while he found the election "unacceptable", it was his "sincere hope that we should take this country forward instead of backwards".

Why was there a new vote?

A rerun of the 2019 election was ordered after the Constitutional Court found the original ballot had been marred by widespread irregularities.
That election saw President Mutharika narrowly re-elected by fewer than 159,000 votes.
Mr Chakwera, who came second in that election, argued that tallying forms had been added up incorrectly and tampered with.

Uncertainty around the result sparked months of tension, which spilled over into clashes between opposition supporters and police.
February's annulment led some to celebrate, but Mr Mutharika described it as a "serious subversion of justice" which marked the death of the country's democracy.
There were concerns over the logistics and safety of carrying out an election in the midst of the worldwide coronavirus pandemic.

But this week's rerun was largely peaceful, despite deep tensions

Who is Lazarus Chakwera ?

The opposition leader, a former cleric, heads up the opposition Malawi Congress Party (MCP).
Born in Lilongwe to a subsistence farmer, the philosophy and theology graduate has pledged to raise the national minimum wage, among other reforms.

Lazarus Chakwera. Candidate for the Tonse Alliance [ Born 5 April 1955 ],[ Studied theology in Malawi, South Africa and USA ],[ Pastor and lecturer worked at the Assemblies of God School of Theology ],[ Authored several books on religion including Reach the Nations ],[ Ran for president in 2014 and came second ].

Mr Chakwera leads a nine-party coalition, the Tonse Alliance, and had the backing of former President Joyce Banda as well as the country's vice-president, Saulos Chilima, as his running mate.
Mr Chilima - who finished third in the 2019 vote - was once an ally of President Mutharika, but has since fallen out with him.

Almaigaa:
Na the real CRIMINAL names you just mentioned. Those guys do every crime just to make money. They go as far as using their family members for Blood money.

Melezenawii:
IPOB NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR INSECURITY IN SOUTH EAST -

PETER OBI
IPOB Publicity Secretary

fergie001:
I have said it countless times that INEC needs to be reprimanded. They have a moral baggage on why transmission of results to IReV had k-leg. Is it enough to cancel a Presidential Election because it was not viewed on IReV, my humble opinion is NO.

Not just the use of Form EC8A, the building block, the foundation, the most important aspect of results collation are these forms.

That was how Hope Uzodinma became Governor, via the SC.

It rests on the petitioners to isolate these ones and challenge same in Court.

Again, the Police also have copies so the petitioners have to ensure that they produce their own copies in evidence. Another thing is that they can also produce the BVAS machines or CTCs thereof.

That is not the most important aspect..... The most important aspect of the election is for the results in Form EC8A to tally with results on the BVAS ​machines which expectedly will go to IReV.

IReV is only for public viewing. Even if these results aren't uploaded on IReV, BVAS machines scanned them.

See, results were collated via the forms, BVAS scanned them but they couldn't be uploaded to IREV. Very simple, produce the machines and tender same with Form EC8A duplicate copies with the agents and the Police.

Again, is it safe to say that areas where there is no network coverage for uploading therefore the election should also be cancelled there?

Is it safe also to say human and machine error can also not take place?

It is therefore safe to say anywhere IReV is not uploaded, cancel the results.

There is no substantial non-compliance in my view.

But you said below there is a rightful winner. How did you count the votes?

Who in your opinion is the rightful winner?
The man who came 2nd or the one who came 3rd?

There is what we call presumption of regularity (Omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta) in Latin ...Tinubu is President and rightful winner only Courts will say otherwise.

The evidence to me is not rich enough!

Going further, this is not the first time CLOs and others have criticised our elections. Even in 2015, our General Elections have not gone as planned.

It is strange to me to say the SC should cancel the Presidential Election because it was not uploaded on IReV.

I liken this situation of you writing a University exam and because results were not uploaded on the Departmental Board then the exam should be cancelled (when your scripts and results have been forwarded by the lecturer in charge).

Elections for National Assembly took place same day and same time...... So we should discard the foundation and building-block because of public viewing?

The National Assembly should also be cancelled because voting and results took place at same PUs... All went through same process save for public viewing.

I have said the moral baggage rests with INEC, other than that NOTHING

Jamestown123:
People really need to ask the kano state government what they did to end boko haram in Kano state. Because as of 2012 to 2013 kano state was a no go area also, because of boko haram bombing in every major places in the state. Saint Charles Catholic Church in nomansland was bombed and about 60 people including children died. New road park in sabongari, one of the most busiest park in the north was bombed, and about 100 lives was lost. Around 2013 Bompai barrack was attacked, and many people including police men and women lost their lives to that attack, it was hot in kano state that period. Until the kano state government, not the federal government, said enough was enough. And since 2015 till date, kano state has not experience an attack from boko haram anymore. So what did kano state government did, that other states failed to do?

dokyOloye:
Bia nwoke Izhii, egube okfu i cho ntaa le nairaland dukwa too much

seunmsg:
What i consider illogical and absolutely unreasonable is reading the above clause of the law and still arguing blindly that not uploading result to IREV directly from polling unit is enough ground for canceling the presidential election.

Even by mere gathering and collating form EC8A given to police officers on duty, INEC can validly declare a winner even when results electronically transmitted to BVAS or uploaded to IREV are not available. So, can’t you see clearly that not uploading result at all to IREV can never be a ground for canceling the election in as much as the original form EC8A is available? So, what exactly are you arguing about?

I highlighted the part in bold purposely so that I can correct the ignorant impression from you guys that electronic transmission of result as used severally in the electoral act and INEC guideline means uploading of result from polling units to IREV. That is not true. Electronic transmission as you can is different from uploading to IREV. It simply means using BVAS to scan and save the form EC8A at the polling unit and taking it directly to the ward collation centre. When there is discrepancy between the result reflected on the physical form EC8A and the copies given to party agents, the collation officer will use the result scanned and saved on BVAS to resolve the discrepancy. It is when BVAS is not available that IREV may be used.

wegevv:
So how come you’re the one derailing the conversation happening here with your vile, unreasonable, emotional charged, logically deficient and unsolicited psychoanalysis of so the called Obidients? lol

Disease is usually diagnosed from individual to individual and it’s pretty clear to anyone reading this thread who is infected here lmao

What’s the saying about a black pot and kettle again? lol

PS: The fact that Penguin replied with grace to your borderline hate speech further emphasises the point lol. He’s a better man than me

AntiZikist:
Do you know if it's on lease ?

SalamRushdie:
The ship was probably just chartered to lift oil for a big NNPC thief