₦airaland Forum

seunmsg:
I didn’t take the APC case seriously until last week when I read some extract from the YIAGA report and also read that INEC actually issued different CTC of BVAS accreditation reports to APC and PDP.

I remember vividly on Election Day that APC raised alarm that voting was still ongoing late into the night in Ede and some local governments in Osun west at a time INEC had declared all polling units close. The result is what we are now seeing.

Hopefully, APC can prove its case beyond reasonable doubt in all the affected local governments. BVAS and its application has not been previously tested in court so this case should help us establish solid precedence ahead of the 2023 election.

The independent report of YIOGA is revealing and speaks volumes about the outcome and conduct of the election

ejimatic:
APC allefeged overvoting non accreditation non compliance with electoral laws and voting till 10 pm in Ede local governments. The PDP claimed these happened in six poling units not in 746 polling units. The Yoga reports outined the premeditated hide and seek voting system in the. contested units and lampooned INEC ifor conspiracy on the electoral procedure of the election. The issues now are:. 1 Should BVAS report be different from BVAS machine record.3 Did the results in forms EC8 agree with the combination of BVAS records and BVAS machine report? 3 Are there multiple votes in all places where election ended at 9 in the contested units? Interesting days lie ahead. at the Tribunal.. Finally I need to retrate that in all places where there are overvoting multiple votes and noncomiace of the electoral laws all the results will be cancelled. Aregbesola vrs PDP INEC Oyinlola 2011.

The PDP legal Team also trumpets that the non-compliance was not substantial enough to warrant a win for Oyetola. Truth is, when a Lawyer in an election petition speaks to the Petitioner’s Petition in that manner he walks a tight rope and he knows it! The matter will turn on when non-compliance is substantial enough to warrant a win by a challenger in an election.

zoedew:
The PDP legal Team also trumpets that the non-compliance was not substantial enough to warrant a win for Oyetola. Truth is, when a Lawyer in an election petition speaks to the Petitioner’s Petition in that manner he walks a tight rope and he knows it! The matter will turn on when non-compliance is substantial enough to warrant a win by a challenger in an election.

I am still surprised that the PDP lawyers would speak in agreement to petitioner's claims

ejimatic:
I am still surprised that the PDP lawyers would speak in agreement to petitioner's claims

You know how it goes when your back is to the wall in the courtroom and the matter is heavy with forensic content. Many fail to reckon with the fact that BVAS is essentially an offline device. That means that even when it is not online the integrity of its content remains intact. They will have to contend with that. Their Lordships will have to decide what happens when there are material contradictions between EC8A and its source i.e. the BVAS. For me the latter prevails. That way it just might be that Adeleke’s goose is cooked. It is doubtful whether the generality of the people will be at peace with such judgment though.

fergie001:
INEC rightly admitted that as at July 18 (2 days after the election), when Oyetola requested for it, they hadn't completed the BVAS report. It wasn't yet synchronised especially with PUs where there were above 700 regd. voters...

Now, APC is not querying the direct information from the machine itself but that of the BVAS report (a secondary evidence), obtained from the collation on the server. The Electoral Act has clearly identified the BVAS machine and the forms EC8A as primary sources of evidence. The BVAS report can be likened to an "INEC server thing."

The second one issued was after the report was completed when the petition was about to get started at the tribunal.

To prove over-voting, the law is trite that the Petitioner must do the following: (Shinkafi v Yari):
1. Tender the Voter's Register (overtaken by the BVAS machine, emphasis mine).
See EA 2022. S 47(2)

2. Tender the Statement of Result in the appropriate forms which would show the number of registered accredited voters and number of actual votes. (EC8A in this case)

3. Relate each of the documents to the specific area of his case in respect of which the documents are tendered. (That is for the left to the petitioner to determine, my opinion)

4. Show that the figure representing the over-voting if removed would result in victory for the petitioner. (For the petitioner to determine, my opinion).

It is clear that the BVAS machine (not report), results sheet, ballot papers and Statement of forms are the primary sources of evidence.

Again, Oyetola will have to call witnesses that will give oral evidence to prove decisive in his case.

The other is the allegation of over-voting and non-compliance.

On YIAGA claim, I don't think your version is correct.

This is YIAGA's report, you can go through it.

You misquoted us - YIAGA replies Osun Govt, APC

I will take two paragraphs:
Yiaga Africa has deployed the PVT in 12 elections in Nigeria including the 2019 Presidential election. "The ERAD report corroborates the PVT findings contained in the report on the Ekiti and Osun Governorship elections released on August 27th, 2022 which clearly revealed that the results announced by INEC in the Ekiti and Osun election were CONSISTENT with votes cast at the polling units.

"Had the official results been changed at the Ward, LGA, or State collation centers, the official results would not have fallen within the Yiaga Africa PVT estimated ranges." The group said it strongly stands by its PVT findings which have in no way contradicted the ERAD report.

PS: Adeleke in his written defence, admitted that six PUs showed false voting took place.

Just to note;

....weight can hardly be attached to a document tendered in evidence by a witness who cannot or is not in a position to answer questions on the document. One such person the law identifies is the one who did not make the document. Such a person is adjudged in the eyes of the law as ignorant of the content of the document.” (Buhari v INEC)

The Supreme Court emphasised the fact that where the maker of a document is not called to testify, the document would not be accorded probative value, notwithstanding its status as a certified public document. (Belgore v Ahmed)

It is the maker of the document (INEC) issued that will lead the evidence for this!

INEC has tendered the now synchronised report, result sheets and BVAS machine itself before the tribunal.

In a nutshell, the Card reports simply pulls off data from the machine which is not automatic and is dependent on network & server.

Let me take you back to Okereke v Umahi 2016.

PW: “I am a staff of (INEC) and the HOU (ICT Data Management) at INEC Headquarters…The Card Reader performs two roles, namely, the verification of the PVC and the authentication of the fingerprint…I generated a Card Reader Machines Report for Ebonyi State Governorship Election ….That the Card Reader (sic, Report) I generated… was not a complete report covering all the details of Polling Units in Ebonyi State as some Polling Units were not then uploaded and thus not included in that report. However, to meet the application request of the Petitioner’s counsel, the Commission issued him with the CTC of what was available at the time of his application. Subsequently, following the application of the Petitioners, the uploaded data available at the time of instruction by the Chairman of INEC to shut down the server was delivered to the Petitioners…from the record available to us at ICT Department, INEC Headquarters, Abuja, there were some PUs where the database server at ICT Department (INEC Headquarters) recorded zero/nil for the Card Reader Machine Report for the Governorship… election… It may be attributable to where Card Readers were used but the data captured were not uploaded.” [Italics supplied]

The Supreme Court: Her trenchant responses, clearly, demonstrate that the Card Reader Machine Reports were neither inviolable nor sacrosanct as a host of intervening mischievous human variables could impinge on their reliability. It would, perhaps, be better to hear from her lips:

PW: “There are some factors that will affect the uploading of information from the Card Reader Machines to the INEC Data Base. It is correct to say that the uploading process is not automatic. A person must initiate the uploading process.........

Also see Wike v Peterside.....

Thirdly, as observed by learned senior counsel for the Appellant, there was nothing to show that at the time 1st and 2nd Respondents applied for Exhibit A9 (Card Reader Reports), all the data from the card readers used in the election had been fully uploaded.


THIS WILL GIVE A DIRECTION!


Ejimatic

everything you write here should give us under voting and not over voting.
If you've not synchronized then we should have some numbers pending 5o be added up.
And 2, this is not card reader, bvas is accrediting, confirmation and transmission. There's no time to be waiting for bvas to transmit data, it transmit immediately after or before leaving the ping unit.

This is totally diff from card reader.

There's admission that 6 polling unit are affected the there's no need cancelling 10 Locap government as APC is parading.
They should cancel the PU and pdp defend the other cases like the result and co, if adeleke win den fine, if not good.
He may not be destined to be a governor, see obaseki, with all d money and local politics.

The thing is if its not ur time or destined ,no matter what, you'll never get der.
Zefini

Healthquest:
everything you write here should give us under voting and not over voting.
If you've not synchronized then we should have some numbers pending 5o be added up.
And 2, this is not card reader, bvas is accrediting, confirmation and transmission. There's no time to be waiting for bvas to transmit data, it transmit immediately after or before leaving the ping unit.

This is totally diff from card reader.

There's admission that 6 polling unit are affected the there's no need cancelling 10 Locap government as APC is parading.
They should cancel the PU and pdp defend the other cases like the result and co, if adeleke win den fine, if not good.
He may not be destined to be a governor, see obaseki, with all d money and local politics.

The thing is if its not ur time or destined ,no matter what, you'll never get der.
Zefini

There is a difference between Card Reader/BVAS machine and reports. The report is manual and offloaded data which is simply done by any officer and not automatic like POS machine.

These two aren't the same things. What APC is contesting is bvas reports (unsynchronized) they obtained immediately after the election, and now synchronised and submitted before the tribunal. The maker(s) of the document (INEC) is now saying what it is. The Court will not subscribe to incomplete data at the expense of a complete one.

Similar examples are there to follow.

Secondly, what was contested in both cases was not under-voting. How can you go to Court to contest under-voting?

Troublemaker111:
I don't think anything is changing . The voting pattern was quite okay . Most of those town reflected their actual voting strength

They need evidence on paper, not empirical observations. Adeleke where are you? Please come out let’s dance lol!!!

JASONjnr:
Politicians should just stop conducting elections and be contesting on a battle field to go into office...

Because they've rubbished INEC so much that we don't even have any credible electoral body that's independent of the political class manipulation.

Make everybody enter ring begin fight....The winner will now occupy the office.

May be if it was a dancing competition, I am 100% sure Adeleke would have won.

fergie001:
INEC rightly admitted that as at July 18 (2 days after the election), when Oyetola requested for it, they hadn't completed the BVAS report. It wasn't yet synchronised especially with PUs where there were above 700 regd. voters...

Now, APC is not querying the direct information from the machine itself but that of the BVAS report (a secondary evidence), obtained from the collation on the server. The Electoral Act has clearly identified the BVAS machine and the forms EC8A as primary sources of evidence. The BVAS report can be likened to an "INEC server thing."

The second one issued was after the report was completed when the petition was about to get started at the tribunal.

To prove over-voting, the law is trite that the Petitioner must do the following: (Shinkafi v Yari):
1. Tender the Voter's Register (overtaken by the BVAS machine, emphasis mine).
See EA 2022. S 47(2)

2. Tender the Statement of Result in the appropriate forms which would show the number of registered accredited voters and number of actual votes. (EC8A in this case)

3. Relate each of the documents to the specific area of his case in respect of which the documents are tendered. (That is for the left to the petitioner to determine, my opinion)

4. Show that the figure representing the over-voting if removed would result in victory for the petitioner. (For the petitioner to determine, my opinion).

It is clear that the BVAS machine (not report), results sheet, ballot papers and Statement of forms are the primary sources of evidence.

Again, Oyetola will have to call witnesses that will give oral evidence to prove decisive in his case.

The other is the allegation of over-voting and non-compliance.

On YIAGA claim, I don't think your version is correct.

This is YIAGA's report, you can go through it.

You misquoted us - YIAGA replies Osun Govt, APC

I will take two paragraphs:
Yiaga Africa has deployed the PVT in 12 elections in Nigeria including the 2019 Presidential election. "The ERAD report corroborates the PVT findings contained in the report on the Ekiti and Osun Governorship elections released on August 27th, 2022 which clearly revealed that the results announced by INEC in the Ekiti and Osun election were CONSISTENT with votes cast at the polling units.

"Had the official results been changed at the Ward, LGA, or State collation centers, the official results would not have fallen within the Yiaga Africa PVT estimated ranges." The group said it strongly stands by its PVT findings which have in no way contradicted the ERAD report.

PS: Adeleke in his written defence, admitted that six PUs showed false voting took place.

Just to note;

....weight can hardly be attached to a document tendered in evidence by a witness who cannot or is not in a position to answer questions on the document. One such person the law identifies is the one who did not make the document. Such a person is adjudged in the eyes of the law as ignorant of the content of the document.” (Buhari v INEC)

The Supreme Court emphasised the fact that where the maker of a document is not called to testify, the document would not be accorded probative value, notwithstanding its status as a certified public document. (Belgore v Ahmed)

It is the maker of the document (INEC) issued that will lead the evidence for this!

INEC has tendered the now synchronised report, result sheets and BVAS machine itself before the tribunal.

In a nutshell, the Card reports simply pulls off data from the machine which is not automatic and is dependent on network & server.

Let me take you back to Okereke v Umahi 2016.

PW: “I am a staff of (INEC) and the HOU (ICT Data Management) at INEC Headquarters…The Card Reader performs two roles, namely, the verification of the PVC and the authentication of the fingerprint…I generated a Card Reader Machines Report for Ebonyi State Governorship Election ….That the Card Reader (sic, Report) I generated… was not a complete report covering all the details of Polling Units in Ebonyi State as some Polling Units were not then uploaded and thus not included in that report. However, to meet the application request of the Petitioner’s counsel, the Commission issued him with the CTC of what was available at the time of his application. Subsequently, following the application of the Petitioners, the uploaded data available at the time of instruction by the Chairman of INEC to shut down the server was delivered to the Petitioners…from the record available to us at ICT Department, INEC Headquarters, Abuja, there were some PUs where the database server at ICT Department (INEC Headquarters) recorded zero/nil for the Card Reader Machine Report for the Governorship… election… It may be attributable to where Card Readers were used but the data captured were not uploaded.” [Italics supplied]

The Supreme Court: Her trenchant responses, clearly, demonstrate that the Card Reader Machine Reports were neither inviolable nor sacrosanct as a host of intervening mischievous human variables could impinge on their reliability. It would, perhaps, be better to hear from her lips:

PW: “There are some factors that will affect the uploading of information from the Card Reader Machines to the INEC Data Base. It is correct to say that the uploading process is not automatic. A person must initiate the uploading process.........

Also see Wike v Peterside.....

Thirdly, as observed by learned senior counsel for the Appellant, there was nothing to show that at the time 1st and 2nd Respondents applied for Exhibit A9 (Card Reader Reports), all the data from the card readers used in the election had been fully uploaded.


THIS WILL GIVE A DIRECTION!


Ejimatic

The actual number of those who voted is not in contention. What is in contention is the number of accredited voters in relation to number of votes cast. And BVAS belongs to INEC, and INEC is joined in the appeal. Therefore, they will have to explain how that overvoting happened, and if it truly happened.

I was just idealistic about it right now as a man voting in osun since 2005 , so Ologbeni I know what I'm saying

drlateef:
They need evidence on paper, not empirical observations. Adeleke where are you? Please come out let’s dance lol!!!

Troublemaker111:
I was just idealistic about it right now as a man voting in osun since 2005 , so Ologbeni I know what I'm saying

Ideas don’t fly in court of law. Thank you.

drlateef:
The actual number of those who voted is not in contention. What is in contention is the number of accredited voters in relation to number of votes cast. And BVAS belongs to INEC, and INEC is joined in the appeal. Therefore, they will have to explain how that overvoting happened, and if it truly happened.

Which was caused by the 1st CTC report issued to Oyetola.

INEC is the maker of the document and have argued in their petition that the initial report was indeed not synchronised and the second CTC is the SYNCHRONISED ONE. INEC has also tendered the BVAS machine (Primary Source) to the tribunal.

The unsynchronised report even had 1001 PUs with false-voting, some of which the petitioner won.

fergie001:
Which was caused by the 1st CTC report issued to Oyetola.

INEC is the maker of the document and have argued in their petition that the initial report was indeed not synchronised and the second CTC is the SYNCHRONISED ONE. INEC has also tendered the BVAS machine (Primary Source) to the tribunal.

The unsynchronised report even had 1001 PUs with false-voting, some of which the petitioner won.

There’s no way PDP can wriggle out of this problem. The election will either be annulled or declared in favour of APC.

drlateef:
There’s no way PDP can wriggle out of this problem. The election will either be annulled or declared in favour of APC.

Don't bet with anyone na beg I dey beg you

Troublemaker111:
There was over voting in ife, osogbo , iragbiji you know next to.nothing about osun politics . I think we should also start looking into Ekiti election . Iwo tio mon nkankan

In election petitions, ONLY the results from the disputes polling units (where the petitioner) is challenging the results will be looked into.
Even obvious infractions of the electoral laws in the Oshogbo, Ife or Iragbiji won't be discussed if the petitioner is not challenging the results in those places.

You need to work on your grammer before you can argue with me .... Thank you

drlateef:
Ideas don’t fly in court of law. Thank you.

fergie001:
INEC rightly admitted that as at July 18 (2 days after the election), when Oyetola requested for it, they hadn't completed the BVAS report. It wasn't yet synchronised especially with PUs where there were above 700 regd. voters...

Now, APC is not querying the direct information from the machine itself but that of the BVAS report (a secondary evidence), obtained from the collation on the server. The Electoral Act has clearly identified the BVAS machine and the forms EC8A as primary sources of evidence. The BVAS report can be likened to an "INEC server thing."

The second one issued was after the report was completed when the petition was about to get started at the tribunal.

To prove over-voting, the law is trite that the Petitioner must do the following: (Shinkafi v Yari):
1. Tender the Voter's Register (overtaken by the BVAS machine, emphasis mine).
See EA 2022. S 47(2)

2. Tender the Statement of Result in the appropriate forms which would show the number of registered accredited voters and number of actual votes. (EC8A in this case)

3. Relate each of the documents to the specific area of his case in respect of which the documents are tendered. (That is for the left to the petitioner to determine, my opinion)

4. Show that the figure representing the over-voting if removed would result in victory for the petitioner. (For the petitioner to determine, my opinion).

It is clear that the BVAS machine (not report), results sheet, ballot papers and Statement of forms are the primary sources of evidence.

Again, Oyetola will have to call witnesses that will give oral evidence to prove decisive in his case.

The other is the allegation of over-voting and non-compliance.

On YIAGA claim, I don't think your version is correct.

This is YIAGA's report, you can go through it.

You misquoted us - YIAGA replies Osun Govt, APC

I will take two paragraphs:
Yiaga Africa has deployed the PVT in 12 elections in Nigeria including the 2019 Presidential election. "The ERAD report corroborates the PVT findings contained in the report on the Ekiti and Osun Governorship elections released on August 27th, 2022 which clearly revealed that the results announced by INEC in the Ekiti and Osun election were CONSISTENT with votes cast at the polling units.

"Had the official results been changed at the Ward, LGA, or State collation centers, the official results would not have fallen within the Yiaga Africa PVT estimated ranges." The group said it strongly stands by its PVT findings which have in no way contradicted the ERAD report.

PS: Adeleke in his written defence, admitted that six PUs showed false voting took place.

Just to note;

....weight can hardly be attached to a document tendered in evidence by a witness who cannot or is not in a position to answer questions on the document. One such person the law identifies is the one who did not make the document. Such a person is adjudged in the eyes of the law as ignorant of the content of the document.” (Buhari v INEC)

The Supreme Court emphasised the fact that where the maker of a document is not called to testify, the document would not be accorded probative value, notwithstanding its status as a certified public document. (Belgore v Ahmed)

It is the maker of the document (INEC) issued that will lead the evidence for this!

INEC has tendered the now synchronised report, result sheets and BVAS machine itself before the tribunal.

In a nutshell, the Card reports simply pulls off data from the machine which is not automatic and is dependent on network & server.

Let me take you back to Okereke v Umahi 2016.

PW: “I am a staff of (INEC) and the HOU (ICT Data Management) at INEC Headquarters…The Card Reader performs two roles, namely, the verification of the PVC and the authentication of the fingerprint…I generated a Card Reader Machines Report for Ebonyi State Governorship Election ….That the Card Reader (sic, Report) I generated… was not a complete report covering all the details of Polling Units in Ebonyi State as some Polling Units were not then uploaded and thus not included in that report. However, to meet the application request of the Petitioner’s counsel, the Commission issued him with the CTC of what was available at the time of his application. Subsequently, following the application of the Petitioners, the uploaded data available at the time of instruction by the Chairman of INEC to shut down the server was delivered to the Petitioners…from the record available to us at ICT Department, INEC Headquarters, Abuja, there were some PUs where the database server at ICT Department (INEC Headquarters) recorded zero/nil for the Card Reader Machine Report for the Governorship… election… It may be attributable to where Card Readers were used but the data captured were not uploaded.” [Italics supplied]

The Supreme Court: Her trenchant responses, clearly, demonstrate that the Card Reader Machine Reports were neither inviolable nor sacrosanct as a host of intervening mischievous human variables could impinge on their reliability. It would, perhaps, be better to hear from her lips:

PW: “There are some factors that will affect the uploading of information from the Card Reader Machines to the INEC Data Base. It is correct to say that the uploading process is not automatic. A person must initiate the uploading process.........

Also see Wike v Peterside.....

Thirdly, as observed by learned senior counsel for the Appellant, there was nothing to show that at the time 1st and 2nd Respondents applied for Exhibit A9 (Card Reader Reports), all the data from the card readers used in the election had been fully uploaded.


THIS WILL GIVE A DIRECTION!


Ejimatic

Sincerely oga fergie001, you have said it all here. APC doesn’t have any case to argue in the tribunal court of justice. They are just on the media trial games on the media. Don’t give them much attention Abeg. They are just bunch of empty chest beater and loser in the court of justice. No form of IMO case where The clueless thief, Uzodinma came via the back door. It’s the lawyers that Honourable Ihedioha hired that they were slow to reply APC bunch of liars they called themselves lawyers. In Osun State it’s different and APC will be disgrace and shamed in the tribunal court of justice. Besides, APC mole in Pdp, Dotun Babayemi will be disgrace in the Supreme Court of justice again in this week when the Supreme Court of justices will be given their judgement on failed Dotun Babayemi’s case in the Supreme Court this week Thursday. Victories on every side in the court of justice.

Troublemaker111:
You need to work on your grammer before you can argue with me .... Thank you

Oh! Sorry you are not educated to my level. Definitely that’s a figure of speech in English. You are the illiterate here lol. Go check your dictionary. Lol.