₦airaland Forum

As criminals are getting smart, INEC must be ahead of their game. Ballot papers must now have bar codes. After accreditation, each candidate must have their ballot paper scanned against their ID. That’s what they do here. When over-voting occurs its easy to remove the ballot papers of those who did not do accreditation. That will prevent complete cancellation of the unit’s election result. I hope INEC will look into this.

Alright

drlateef:
As criminals are getting smart, INEC must be ahead of their game. Ballot papers must now have bar codes. After accreditation, each candidate must have their ballot paper scanned against their ID. That’s what they do here. When over-voting occurs its easy to remove the ballot papers of those who did not do accreditation. That will prevent complete cancellation of the unit’s election result. I hope INEC will look into this.

INEC official allowed and are also involve in over voting

Everything about him is beautiful
His wife
His education
His photographer
His vice
His vice wife
His future
His health
His age
And Nigeria will be beautiful under him.

Vote peter obi

duro4chang:
INEC official allowed and are also involve in over voting

I agree with the OP. His idea will render the INEC officials powerless.

drlateef:
As criminals are getting smart, INEC must be ahead of their game. Ballot papers must now have bar codes. After accreditation, each candidate must have their ballot paper scanned against their ID. That’s what they do here. When over-voting occurs its easy to remove the ballot papers of those who did not do accreditation. That will prevent complete cancellation of the unit’s election result. I hope INEC will look into this.

It is too late. The provision of the electoral act is to cancel the whole area.

emorse:
I agree with the OP. His idea will render the INEC officials powerless.

Yes but they can still do the magomago either intentionally or by duress but tribunal is waiting for them to cancel the election.

HIGHLIGHTING THE ERRORS IN THE OSUN TRIBUNAL CHAIRMAN'S VERDICT BY HASHIM ABIOYE ESQ.

1. NOTHING WAS WRONG WITH THE BVAS MACHINES BUT WITH THE INEC SERVER AS AGAINST THE ERRONEOUS HOLDING OF THE TRIBUNAL CHAIRMAN.

2. ACCREDITATION WAS BY BVAS MACHINES CONCURRENTLY WITH THE VOTERS' REGISTERS. BVAS MACHINES, VOTERS REGISTER AND THE FORMS WERE WHAT WERE USED TO CONDUCT AND DECLARE ELECTION RESULTS, NOT THE SERVER WHICH THE APC RELIED UPON AND UPON WHICH THE TRIBUNAL CHAIRMAN PREMISED HIS VERDICT.

3. INTRODUCTION OF BVAS HAS NOT REMOVED VOTERS REGISTER AS AGAINST THE HOLDING OF THE TRIBUNAL CHAIRMAN.

4. DIRECT INFORMATION FROM BVAS MACHINES CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH THE INFORMATION FROM THE SERVER WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY NETWORK.

5. OYETOLA'S PETITION WAS DETERMINED UPON THE BVAS REPORT FROM SERVER NOT UPON THE PHYSICAL INFORMATION ON THE BVAS MACHINES WHICH HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE THE DAY AND TIME OF THE ELECTION.

6. BVAS MACHINE IS DIFFERENT FROM SERVER REPORT. BVAS IS THE DIRECT PRIMARY SOURCE, WHILE SERVER IS NOT, AS AGAINST THE VERDICT OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE TRIBUNAL.

7. BVAS MACHINES USED FOR OSUN ELECTION WERE IN EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE INFORMATION ON THEM TALLIES WITH THE FORMS EC8A, THEREFORE NO DISCREPANCIES AS AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL.

8. SERVER CREATED DISCREPANCIES BY PRODUCING TWO DIFFERENT BVAS REPORTS, BUT THE BVAS MACHINES THEMSELVES PRODUCED ONLY ONE WHICH THE TRIBUNAL CHAIRMAN JETTISONED.

9. THE TRIBUNAL CHAIRMAN PICKED THE SERVER REPORT WHICH THE PETITIONERS SERVED AS THE PILLAR OF THEIR CASE, ABANDONED THE LATER SERVER REPORT. THE TRIBUNAL EQUALLY CLOSED ITS EYES AGAINST THE BVAS MACHINES AND THE FORMS EC8As THAT WERE PHYSICALLY BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL.

10. THE TRIBUNAL WAGED A WAR AGAINST THE BVAS MACHINES THEMSELVES AND THE DIRECT DATA EXTRACTED FROM THEM, WHEN INDEED THE WAR SHOULD BE AGAINST THE CONTROVERSIAL BVAS REPORTS.

11. THE TRIBUNAL CHAIRMAN GRANTED AN ORDER FOR PHYSICAL INSPECTION OF THE BVAS MACHINES, YET CLOSED ITS EYES AGAINST THE REPORT OF THE SAID PHYSICAL INSPECTION INCLUDING THE BVAS MACHINES THEMSELVES.

12. THE BVAS MACHINES THEMSELVES, AND THE REPORT OF PHYSICAL INSPECTION DID NOT ESTABLISH OVER-VOTING AT ALL, BUT THE TRIBUNAL CHAIRMAN WENT ON TO HOLD OVER-VOTING ON THE BASIS OF THE SERVER REPORT.

13. NIGERIANS AND THE WORLD SHOULD KNOW THAT THE DOCUMENT WHICH THE TRIBUNAL CHAIRMAN HELD TO BE FORGERY WAS THE SAME DOCUMENT IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE SUPERIOR COURT OF APPEAL HAS VINDICATED ADELEKE, SINCE THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT HE ATTENDED EDE MUSLIM GRAMMAR SCHOOL AND SAT FOR WAEC. THE TRIBUNAL FAILED TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE SAID JUDGMENT WHICH CLEARED ADELEKE OF FORGERY.

14. NO NECO RESULT WAS CONTAINED IN ALL THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS FALSELY BEING PEDDLED BY THE APC AND THEIR PROPAGANDISTS.

15. THE WHOLE WORLD SHOULD RISE TO DEFEND THE BVAS MACHINES AS AGAINST THE CONTROVERSIAL SERVER REPORTS UPON WHICH THE TRIBUNAL CHAIRMAN BASED HIS JUDGMENT.

16. THE APC PROPAGANDISTS AND MERCINARIES ARE HOLDING ON TO BIG LIES, A BASELESS REPORT TO TOPPLE A VALIDLY ELECTED GOVERNOR.

17. THE WORLD SHOULD BE TOLD THAT BVAS MACHINES USED FOR OSUN 2022 GOVERNORSHIP ELECTION HAD NO PROBLEM, NO OVER-VOTING, BUT A SERVER REPORT WHICH THE TRIBUNAL CHAIRMAN ERRONEOUSLY RELIED UPON.

18. THE TRIBUNAL CHAIRMAN LACKED JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 51(1),(2),(3) & (4) OF THE ELECTORAL ACT, 2022, TO DECLARE OYETOLA THE WINNER AFTER CANCELLING VOTES OF THE PARTIES ON THE BASIS OF THE SERVER REPORT, EVEN THOUGH THE BVAS MACHINES THEMSELVES AND THE FORMS EC8As TENDERED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT ESTABLISH SUCH.

- Compiled by Abioye Hashim Esq.

duro4chang:
Yes but they can still do the magomago either intentionally or by duress but tribunal is waiting for them to cancel the election.