BluntCrazeMan:


@Jokay07
Please, are you still interested in telling me more about the true meaning of “Direct/Directly” as it is contained inside the Electoral Act.??


Thanks.

Please bear with me, I am a bit occupied. I will reply ASAP

garfield1:


I already told you earlier some few hours ago that assuming that electronic transmission is mandatory,results were actually transmitted directly by presiding officers after the elections.
Again,the penalty for not transmitting directly is never nullification of elections

. Please can you actually tell us what you are trying to defend and why?

Jokay07:

Please bear with me, I am a bit occupied. I will reply ASAP

No wahalla..
Thanks

Thanksful:
Then the presidential election is null and void.

IBB How you dey...you wan annul this one too...dey play

Idiotseverywher:
. Please can you actually tell us what you are trying to defend and why?

Let us just assume that he was not involved in electoral fraud and that he is not in support of the electoral fraud.

Ok..
So, he is trying to defend the fact that the Nigerian Justice system is still very very weak.
And that, no matter the electoral fraud committed, that those people involved will still scale the Nigerian Judiciary, and come out very victorious.

IgOga:


IBB How you dey...you wan annul this one too...dey play

History is about to repeat itself because humans don't learn

ACCORDING TO THE ELECTORAL ACT 2022; THE “ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION” OF RESULTS “DIRECTLY FROM THE POLLING-UNITS” IS ACTUALLY MANDATORY, AND NOT OPTIONAL.

From the previous thread, (What Exactly Did The Electoral-Act-2022 Say About The Election Results.??),, a lot of people argued about a lot of things.

Some people said that the “Transmission” as mentioned inside the Electoral Act could means “Manual” transmission, and not Electronic Transmission, since the word “Electronic Transmission” was not specifically mentioned.

Others argued that: even though the Electronic Transmission method was implied or intended in the Electoral Act, that the Electoral Act DIDN'T make it MANDATORY, unlike the way it made “Electronic Accreditation” Mandatory.


These are very good arguments indeed.

I am going to throw more lights on these two strong arguments with references from the Electoral Act Alone.

(Meanwhile “Electronic Transmission” is totally different from the IREV-Portal..

**I will NOT bring in quotes from the INEC’s “Guidelines And Procedures”.)

I can agree that the Two Words “Electronic Transmission” were not phrased together anywhere inside the Electoral Act.
But then, it was definitely implied.
And if it was implied, then it means that: it was the intention of the Act that the Transmission mode should be Electronic Transmission, and not Manual.

And again, if the Electoral Act specified the “Uses” of the directly transmitted results, and even gave a penalty (to all the would-be collation officers and the returning officers) for not making proper “Use” of the directly transmitted results, then it means that it was also the intention of the Act for the “use” of the directly transmitted results to be Mandatory.


Let us take another look at the Section-64 of the Electoral Act,, starting from Sub-Section-(4)

Section-64:
Sub-Section-(4) A collation officer or returning officer at 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.

Note the word SHALL..
The word SHALL is never used whenever something is supposed to be OPTIONAL..
And again,, this particular Sub-Section-(4) made it mandatory (that is, with the word SHALL) that a collation officer or a returning officer must “VERIFY” his own collated results and make that they are CONSISTENT with the directly transmitted results.

This means that, it is MANDATORY for there to be an already transmitted and collated result, which every Collation Officer and/or every returning officer MUST use to verify his own collations at every collation level..

In layman’s language, this Sub-Section-(4) is mandating INEC to transmit results directly from the various polling-units -- (without passing through the various collation officers, and in a very quick manner) -- to a separate aggregation and collation centre; and from where these separately collated results MUST be made QUICKLY AVAILABLE to the various collation officers for them to be used for verification purposes at all the collation levels.

That means, INEC is free to do the “direct transmission” in any way it so desires, as far as the requirements for “Verification” as described in the Electoral Act is properly met.
IT ALSO MEANS THAT THIS VERY PROCEDURE MUST NOT BE DISCARDED.

Thus, if the INEC employed the use of manual transmission for the procedure described by the Electoral Act, it cannot achieve this desired fastness (or quickness).

Sub-Section-(5) Subject to subsection (1), a collation officer or returning officer shall use the number of accredited voters recorded and transmitted directly from polling units under section 47(2) of this Act and the votes or results recorded and transmitted directly from polling units under section 60(4) of this Act to collate and announce the result of an election if a collated result at his or a lower level of collation is not correct.

This Sub-Section-(5) is summarily saying that a returning officer (or a higher collation officer) can overrule the results of lower-level collation officers based on those directly transmitted results.

Sub-Section-(6) Where during collation of results, there is a dispute regarding a collated result or the result of an election from any polling unit, the collation officer or returning officer shall use the following to determine the correctness of the disputed result—

(a) the original of the disputed collated result for each polling unit where the election is disputed;

(b) the smart card reader or other technology device used for accreditation of voters in each polling unit where the election is disputed for the purpose of obtaining accreditation data directly from the smart card reader or technology device;

(c) data of accreditation recorded and transmitted directly from each polling unit where the election is disputed, as prescribed under section 47(2) of this Act; and

(d) the votes and result of the election recorded and transmitted directly from each polling unit where the election is disputed, as prescribed under section 60(4) of this Act.

This Sub-Section-(6) made it very clear that apart from the MANDATORY VERIFICATION Purposes, the directly transmitted results are also supposed to be used in settling disputes that may arise at collation centers.

Sub-Section-(7) If the disputed result under sub-section-(6) were otherwise found not to be correct, the collation officer or returning officer shall re-collate and announce a new result using the information in sub-section-(6) (a)-(d).

Sub-Section-(8.) Where the dispute under sub-section-(6) arose at the level of collation and the returning officer has satisfied the provision of sub-section-(6) (a)-(d), the returning officer shall accordingly declare the winner of the election.

Sub-Section-(9) A returning officer or collation officer, as the case may be, commits an offence if he or she intentionally collates or announces A FALSE RESULT and is liable on conviction to a fine of N5,000,000 or imprisonment for a term of at least three years or both.

This Sub-Section-(9) made it an offence for any collation officer or returning officer to collate and announce a “FALSE RESULT”.

And What Is the “False Result” here supposed to mean.??

a.) Any collated result that was not compulsorily verified as mandated in sub-section-(4) is regarded as a False Result.

b.) For any disputed collated-result which was not settled according to the procedures outlined in Sub-Sections (6, 7, & 8.), then, if the collation officer or returning officer went ahead and announce such a result, it is regarded as a False Result.


AS ALWAYS,, WE WILL STILL WAIT FOR THE JUDGEMENT OF THE SUPREME-COURT JUDGES..

THEY ARE STILL THE FINAL BUS-STOP TO ALL THESE ARGUMENTS..

Lalasticlala, Seun

Nlfpmod

BluntCrazeMan:
.

Please stop quoting the moderators.

The moment this thread gets to front page, the essence will be lost as there will be too many irrelevant posts and distractions.

I'm not a lawyer but learning and enjoying what you guys are doing here.

Thank you.

I saw Ahmed Lawan trying very hard to justify the non-transmission of results from the polling units. The fat idiot was trying to give a new meaning to 'transmission', saying that it means physically carrying the result to the INEC offices.

Ahmed Lawan is a dubious man, and should be kicked out from the National assembly.

I'm unsure what's the legal basis for this: clarity, factual, emphasise, detract ...

0monnak0da:
In 2007 What percentage did Yar'adua get in Abuja?

Be it as it may, I opted to provide factual 'submission'
It was alleged that in FCT, Buhari led the poll with 91,217 votes, followed by Yar’Adua who polled 74,882 votes. Abubakar had 16,746 votes.
The problem is, the 21 April 2007 election, under the INEC chairman Maurice Iwu, goes down in history as the first and only presidential election held in Nigeria, in which there is no official state-by-state breakdown of the candidates’ scores of the 35m votes! (from the ballots that arrived, from South Africa, the Fri night of the election).
Recall that Maurice Maduakolam Iwu, a professor and then INEC chairman, declared Umaru Musa Yar’Adau of the PDP the President-elect with a figure of 24,638,063 votes without giving the detail.
INEC chairman, Maurice Owu announced:
CANDIDATE | RESULTS | VOTES %*
Umaru Musa YAR'DUA | 24,638,063 | 69.60%
Muhammadu BUHARI | 6,605,299 | 18.66%
Atiku ABUBAKAR | 2,637,848 | 7.45%
Orji Uzor KALU | 608,803 | 1.72%

With those factual 'submission', I'll make a slight legal references (not so much of legal submission)
Should we defer to the same principle (stare decisis), then we take notice that in Buhari v INEC & Ors 2007, the SC settled the 'shall' as indeed peremptory, and engaged burden of proof along with substantial proof in election (matter in Nigeria).
I am in full alignment with peremptoriness of 'shall'.
I also agree with the principle of burden of proof (and evidence) as elaborated by Niki Tobi JSC in the judgement, albeit I agree less of the application in the selfsame judgement. Fair to the SC though, the appeallant did not assist with the witnesses’ depositions filed at the Tribunal.
The Buhari v INEC & Ors 2007 interrogate extensively s45(2) of the Electoral Act, 2006 along with ss145 and 146.

Inbtw, the Okereke v Yar'Adua & Ors (SC 246/2007) [2008] 10 (09 MAY 2008) however dealt with technicalities of law: moving motions before the tribunal or court vis-a-vis pre-hearing sessions.

In Abubakar, GCON & Ors v Yar'Adua & Ors (SC 72/2008) [2008] 10 (12 DECEMBER 2008), the appeal, hinged on s145(1)(d) of the Electoral Act 2006, was premised on exclusion and mutually destructive grounds of invalidity of selfsame election for reasons of (gross) corrupt practices.

semmyk:

An interesting article on interpretation and two-thirds (pretty long)
https://www./quarter-two-thirds-nigeria-winning-formula-a-kayode-adesemowo

A quarter of a two-thirds: Nigeria winning formula
"The word “and”, being a conjunction, performing the function of joining two expressions or sentences which could be inseparable, integrated, joint or matched." - Justice Niki Tobi in Buhari v INEC, 2008
The #Nigeriadecides2023 comes in many dimensions. I shall refrain from the politics! However, there is one dimension that resonates with the other side of me. Yep, apart from cybersecurity and multimedia, and 'pythoning', I have a postgraduate in Law, albeit labour law.

I heard analysts are analysing, vehemently so, the interpretation of the "25%" requirements across two-thirds of states (in Nigeria).
Lemme put off my many caps and, for the next few minutes, put on my 'legal' cap.

[SUMMARY} How do we interpret the conjunctive 'and' between two conditioning sentences and the conjunctive 'and' within a conditioning sentence? This is the situation of the two-third impasse of (Constitution) s134(2) arising from #Nigeriadecides2023.

An interesting aspect of law is #interpretation. ... ...

semmyk:
I'm unsure what's the legal basis for this: clarity, factual, emphasise, detract ...

Be it as it may, I opted to provide factual 'submission'
It is alleged that in FCT, Buhari led the poll with 91,217 votes, followed by Yar’Adua who polled 74,882 votes. Abubakar had 16,746 votes.
The problem is, the 21 April 2007 election, under the INEC chairman Maurice Iwu, goes down in history as the first and only presidential election held in Nigeria, in which there is no official state-by-state breakdown of the candidates’ scores of the 35m votes! (from the ballots that arrived, from South Africa, the Fri night of the election).
Recall that Maurice Maduakolam Iwu, a professor and then INEC chairman, declared Umaru Musa Yar’Adau of the PDP the President-elect with a figure of 24,638,063 votes without giving the detail.
INEC chairman, Maurice Owu announced:
CANDIDATE | RESULTS | VOTES %*
Umaru Musa YAR'DUA | 24,638,063 | 69.60%
Muhammadu BUHARI | 6,605,299 | 18.66%
Atiku ABUBAKAR | 2,637,848 | 7.45%
Orji Uzor KALU | 608,803 | 1.72%

With those factual 'submission', I'll make a slight legal references (not so much of legal submission)
Should we defer to the same principle (stare decisis), then we take notice that Buhari v INEC & Ors 2007, the SC settled the 'shall' as indeed peremptory, and engaged burden of proof along with substantial proof in election (matter in Nigeria).
I am with full alignment with peremptoriness of 'shall'.
I also agree with the principle of burden of proof (and evidence) as elaborated by Niki Tobi JSC in the judgement, albeit I agree less of the application in the selfsame judgement. Fair to the SC though, the appeallant did not assist with the witnesses’ depositions filed at the Tribunal.
The Buhari v INEC & Ors 2007 interrogate extensively s45(2) of the Electoral Act, 2006 along with ss145 and 146.

Inbtw, the Okereke v Yar'Adua & Ors (SC 246/2007) [2008] 10 (09 MAY 2008) however dealt with technicalities of law: moving motions before the tribunal or court vis-a-vis pre-hearing sessions.

In Abubakar, GCON & Ors v Yar'Adua & Ors (SC 72/2008) [2008] 10 (12 DECEMBER 2008), the appeal, hinged on s145(1)(d) of the Electoral Act 2006, was premised on exclusion and mutually destructive grounds of invalidity of selfsame election for reasons of (gross) corrupt practices.

All I asked was what Yar'adua got in 2007 (in Abuja)
If you don't have the information why not say so.
Why are you writing a fourth letter to Corinthians?

mexxy1:


Please stop quoting the moderators.

The moment this thread gets to front page, the essence will be lost as there will be too many irrelevant posts and distractions.

I'm not a lawyer but learning and enjoying what you guys are doing here.

Thank you.

Ok..



I think I understand your point.
And thanks for enjoying the thread..


It's just that...
At a point, I felt that a wider audience needed to be guided right with the right information and the right mindset,, especially now that the wrong narrative is already flying around and gaining momentum.
And people are believing the wrong narrative.

In law, the "I saw" in this post might passed as expressing a false statement.

OmoFiditi:
I saw Ahmed Lawan trying very hard to justify the non-transmission of results from the polling units. The fat idiot was trying to give a new meaning to 'transmission', saying that it means physically carrying the result to the INEC offices.

Ahmed Lawan is a dubious man, and should be kicked out from the National assembly.

Unfortunately, it is difficult getting a transcript or copy of the Senate proceeding for Tuesday 28 Feb. While I will be weary of relying on newspaper given the polity, I, nonetheless, take note of Punch publication of 01 March - Link: Opposition senators fault Lawan’s claims on electronic transmission

Do I agree with the SP, Lawan, I disagree, yet I do not fault his asserting (that is, on the assumption that, indeed, his expression is what it purports to be.
SP Lawan: ... “In the Electoral Act that we passed, there is nothing like the election transmission. What we passed is to transfer after all the paper works that we normally do while the agents and everybody there have the papers. INEC will scan or snap the result sheets and transfer them. We urge INEC to follow the Electoral Act and other laws on their guidelines.” ...

Let us take a look at references to transmit/transmission in the Electoral Act, 2022. PS: Those of Electoral Act 2006 cease to be valid as they are of nullity.
It is my belief that the s63 referred to in s50 is an error of omission as commonsense points to s64. Any Judge will do same on the principle of interpretation.

Apparently, a device (which happens to be the much-acclaimed BVAS) shall be used for the process of voting
- determine 'number' of voters for polling unit
- accredit voters at polling unit
- verify and record votes at polling unit
- collate and transfer votes from polling unit.

It is left to be seen how these will impact on interpretation of 'transmission', considering the principle of law on 'cannon of interpretation' as established. See: A quarter of a two-third.

As expressed by many on this thread, interesting times are ahead. Let the Court navigate the interpretation minefield.
_______________________________
Electoral Acts 2022
50.— (1) ... ...
(2) Subject to section 63 of this Act, voting at an election and transmission
of results under this Act shall be in accordance with the procedure determined
by the Commission.

152. [Interpretation.]
In this Act—
“electronic format” refers to the electronic version of the Register of
Voters or National Electronic Register of Election Results, as the case may
be, created, recorded, transmitted or stored in digital form or in other
intangible forms by electronic, magnetic or optical means or by any other
means that has capabilities for creation, recording, transmission or storage
similar to those means and which may be converted to or reproduced in a
paper document ;

63.— [Rejection of ballot paper without official mark.]
(1) Subject to subsection (2), a ballot paper which does not bear
official mark prescribed by the Commission shall not be counted.
(2) If the returning officer is satisfied that a ballot paper which does not
bear the official mark was from a book of ballot papers which was furnished
to the presiding officer of the polling unit in which the vote was cast for use at
the election in question, he or she shall, notwithstanding the absence of the
official mark, count that ballot paper.

64.— [Endorsement on rejected ballot paper without official mark.]
[I will only extract as the BluntCrazeMan has posted verbatim s64 above.]
(1) ...
(4) A collation officer or returning officer at 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.
(5) Subject to subsection (1), a collation officer or returning officer shall
use the number of accredited voters recorded and transmitted directly from
polling units under section 47 (2) of this Act and the votes or results recorded
and transmitted directly from polling units under section 60 (4) of this Act to
collate and announce the result of an election if a collated result at his or a
lower level of collation is not correct.

60.— [Counting of votes and forms.]
(1) The Presiding officer shall, after counting the votes at the polling
unit, enter the votes scored by each candidate in a form to be prescribed by
the Commission as the case may be.
(2) ... ...
(4) The presiding officer shall count and announce the result at the polling unit.
(5) The presiding officer shall transfer the results including total number
of accredited voters and the results of the ballot in a manner as prescribed by the Commission.

47.— [Accreditation of voters and voting.]
(1) ... ...
(2) To vote, the presiding officer shall use a smart card reader or any
other technological device that may be prescribed by the Commission, for the
accreditation of voters, to verify, confirm or authenticate the particulars of the
intending voter in the manner prescribed by the Commission.


PS: the legal position of a regulation/policy/standard/guideline emanating from an Act (or even from the Constitution) has a certain weight in law. I shall not delve into this. Why, the provision of the Act in itself, when thoroughly subject to the test of interpretation as already formulated by our Courts (especially the SC), is capable of resolving the 'impasse'. Keywords to test are: check, verify, transfer, transmit, record and the definition of electronic format. One thing is certain, the headings of each section will be scrutinised as was done in Awolowo v Shagari 1979 and other SC election cases.
For interest sake, the guideline in question is the INEC Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of Elections, 2022; clause 38 comes to mind.

helinues:

Where in the electoral act is transmission of election results is mandatory to be transmitted electronically?

I transported you into this thread so you can see the answers to the question you asked.


Read the Original Post of this very thread..
Then you will see the answers to your question.

Mumu!!! Even after hacking and corrupting the system?

BluntCrazeMan:


I transported you into this thread so you can see the answers to the question you asked.


Read the Original Post of this very thread..
Then you will see the answers to your question.

Create a fresh thread and tag me make I enlighten you

drlateef:
Mumu!!! Even after hacking and corrupting the system?

Who hacked the system??


INEC boasted that they blocked off over 1.2million attempts..

So,, who hacked the system, since INEC successfully blocked-off all those attempts, and even boasted about it.??