₦airaland Forum

socialmediaman:
According to Section 136(2) of Nigeria's electoral act 2022, one of the grounds for petition is that the candidate declared winner was not qualified to contest the election.





Peter Obi (PO) doesn't need to come up with 2.7 million votes, he needs just half of that let me explain the math here:

PO claimed that his votes were given to Tinubu. For example if Tinubu was given 2 million votes and PO was given 1 million votes. If you take back 600K votes from Tinubu and give them, Tinubu now has 1.4 million votes while PO now has 1.6 million votes.

What PO needs to do is focus on Lagos, Rivers, and Benue, and prove polling unit by polling unit (PU by PU) that his votes up to a significant amount capable of upturning the election.

Furthermore, in order to prove that he met the 25% requirement, he needs to prove PU by PU unit in relevant states that the votes given to Tinubu were more than the actual votes Tinubu got.

So for example, in a state like Ekiti where Tinubu was declared winner with 67% votes while PO got 4% of the votes, if he can prove PU by PU that Tinubu didn't get 201K votes but actually got 100K votes, while he (PO) got 75K votes, then this means that Tinubu got 37% not 67% as was declared, while PO got 28% not 4% as was declared

It all boils down to what data the BVAS contains which can be corroborated by data from PU agents, and whether it was tampered with or not

You are right but he cannot do that.there is no time to do polling unit by polling unit prove.buhari tried it within two years in 2007 polls and failed.obi in 2 months cannot do same.

garfield1:
You are right but he cannot do that. there is no time to do polling unit by polling unit prove.buhari tried it within two years in 2007 polls and failed.obi in 2 months cannot do same.

He would have already done that by now. All he needs to do is present the documents and data and explain it to the court.

Example:
"In this 3,500 page document being presented to the court and sworn to be factual and true, we have analyzed data from 1,725 polling units in 3 states and proven that the data presented by INEC ( exhibit A attached) is different from what was captured by the BVAS (exhibit B attached) and our polling agents (exhibit C attached). Our conclusions using these data is that PO scored 6.1 votes while Tinubu scored 4.3 million votes."

DatNiggaDaz:
The courts have the liberty to give meanings to the word " substanstial non-compliance.

It can mean many different things depending on the intergrity of the judges.

As a layman , I think it does not mean further than " beyond reasonable doubt ", and that my friend, Atiku and PO have in abundance . Inec as a corrupt institution even made themselves an exibit in the whole rascality

The supreme court has already given meaning to what substantial noncompliance means oga.I already explained it there.atiku and obi have scanty evidences

Things have changed but you guys don't appreciate it. The results on IREV, inspite of the rigging shows Tinubu did not win.

When the case starts, you'll start seeing evidence

garfield1:
The electoral act assumes that once elections are held,they are regular,free and fair to a large extent and that whoever has issues or complaints must prove it substantially.what is substantial noncompliance? According to the apex court,one must firstly prove that an election was massively fraught with irregularities in a widespread manner and secondly the petitioner must prove that he would have won or they would have been a different outcome if there was no infractions.for instance,obi must at least bring evidence voiding or affecting 2.7 mil votes,the exact margin tunubu is gapping him.proving that he won rivers and benue do not meet substantial noncompliance...
Again,bringing online data of votes will take him no where.he must prove his case polling unit by polling unit and physically.he must present polling unit result sheets one at a time and bring at least one voter or agent from disputed polling units and he must demonstrate this in open court.
Simply claiming that there was overvoting in ekiti state will lead to no issue.he must identify the specific units,match them with data extracted directly from bvas not inec server,compare them the voters register and not just dump them in open court.he must give live to his evidences.out of 6 months for the tribunal,1 and a half months is already spent.out of the 4 and half months,he can only get one and a half month to present all his evidences and averments.that time is not even enough to carry out forensics or recounts in about 3 states.bringing video evidences in a fraction of places or complaints in a few isolated areas like Lagos will lead to wastage.
Talking about challenging tinubu qualifications,the apex court in akinlade vs apc 2019 supra per vivour classified them as pre election matters.was tinubu ever convicted and if so,has 10 years elapsed or not? Even if he was under a sentence, has 10 years not elapsed as stated under subsection d of 137?
Is he a Guinean citizen and even if he was,did he voluntarily acquire it as per registration or he was conferred or born in guinea? As at the time of the polls,was shettima a candidate in two constituencies? Is fct to be counted as a state or differently? What is the closest judgments to this matter? What is the body language of the apex Court?




Cc mynd44
Lalasticlala
Nplfmod
Seun
Seunmsg
Dominique
Kahal
Naptu2
Muykem
Cajal
Fergie001
Penguin2
Vicdom
Aiel123
Mrvitalis
Ogiame
Ogodogo
Ojiofor
Svoboda
Arewanorth
Efewestern
Casualobserver
Mikeofafrica

garfield1:
The supreme court has already given meaning to what substantial noncompliance means oga.I already explained it there.atiku and obi have scanty evidences

Oga, there are many instances of precedents already set by the supreme court. The 25% debacle also comes to mind. Like I said judges will give their own meaning to the word based on the level of their intergrity , your opinion is already irrelevant bro

Bro don't look for the one that favours you that will instgate division among Nigerians

socialmediaman:
He would have already done that by now. All he needs to do is present the documents and data and explain it to the court.

Example:
"In this 3,500 page document being presented to the court and sworn to be factual and true, we have analyzed data from 1,725 polling units in 3 states and proven that the data presented by INEC is different from what was captured by the BVAS and our polling agents. Our conclusions using these data is that PO scored 6.1 votes while Tinubu scored 4.3 million votes."

This is funny.so obi is making conclusions from 3 States? Anyway,this data is from server and not bvas

garfield1:
This is funny.so obi is making conclusions from 3 States? Anyway,this data is from server and not bvas

You're arguing an example here. It was captioned "example" for a reason. Haba!

DatNiggaDaz:
Oga, there are many instances of precedents already set by the supreme court. The 25% debacle also comes to mind. Like I said judges will give their own meaning to the world based on the level of their intergrity

Bro don't look for the one that favours you bring ethnic division among Nigerians

Obi is the one bringing ethnic divisions,he is not wanted by majority.on substantial noncompliance, the supreme court has always been consistent.see wike vs dakuku 2015,udom vs apc supra,atiku vs buhari 2019.I challenge you to quote any ruling where they ruled differently.this is not about morality or integrity but the law.according to law,obi lost

socialmediaman:
You're arguing an example here. It was captioned "example" for a reason. Haba!

It still boils down to obi falling short of the law

DMerciful:
Things have changed but you guys don't appreciate it. The results on IREV, inspite of the rigging shows Tinubu did not win.

When the case starts, you'll start seeing evidence

Not true.results on irev shows that tinubu won son.

garfield1:
Obi is the one bringing ethnic divisions,he is not wanted by majority.on substantial noncompliance, the supreme court has always been consistent.see wike vs dakuku 2015,udom vs apc supra,atiku vs buhari 2019.I challenge you to quote any ruling where they ruled differently.this is not about morality or integrity but the law.according to law,obi lost

Oga rest

DatNiggaDaz:
Oga rest

You and obi should rest.

garfield1:
You and obi should rest.

You made a thread, about to ask what "does substantial noncompliance means " and ended up saying PO dis PO dat.

Your bias is already showing or hate or tribalism, don't know what it is. So pls rest oga. Leave it to the court . It is already in court bro

I hail you o.

socialmediaman:
According to Section 136(2) of Nigeria's electoral act 2022, one of the grounds for petition is that the candidate declared winner was not qualified to contest the election.





Peter Obi (PO) doesn't need to come up with 2.7 million votes, he needs just half of that let me explain the math here:

PO claimed that his votes were given to Tinubu. For example if Tinubu was given 2 million votes and PO was given 1 million votes. If you take back 600K votes from Tinubu and give them, Tinubu now has 1.4 million votes while PO now has 1.6 million votes.

What PO needs to do is focus on Lagos, Rivers, and Benue, and prove polling unit by polling unit (PU by PU) that his votes up to a significant amount capable of upturning the election.

Furthermore, in order to prove that he met the 25% requirement, he needs to prove PU by PU unit in relevant states that the votes given to Tinubu were more than the actual votes Tinubu got.

So for example, in a state like Ekiti where Tinubu was declared winner with 67% votes while PO got 4% of the votes, if he can prove PU by PU that Tinubu didn't get 201K votes but actually got 100K votes, while he (PO) got 75K votes, then this means that Tinubu got 37% not 67% as was declared, while PO got 28%, not 4% as was declared

It all boils down to what data the BVAS contains which can be corroborated by data from PU agents, and whether it was tampered with or not

In an election that involves 3 strong candidates in the south, how did Peter OBi know the votes that went to Tinubu where his votes, and how did Peter Know Atiku didnt steal his vote,

Rivers and plateau are PDP stronghold, APc and E LU Pee should be the suspect,

Peter Obi petitons are laughable when you begin to ask rhetorics, he needs to understand the last election unlike other elections ended four man race, you can just single out the winner, everybody is a suspect including Peter Obi

fergie001:
1. On the issue of substantial non-compliance, I don't think I have to add more to that.

2. On the issue of his qualifications, certain pre-election cases can crystallise to post-election hence the tribunal can handle same ONLY if it touches on the Constitutional eligibility requirements of that Candidate. The Electoral Act has given more powers in that direction wrt forgery. The question is who has the locus to challenge a candidate on submitting false document to INEC?

Simply put, neither Obi, Atiku nor any Candidate at this point have the locus standi to do so. The Court will try to see the merits thereof but simply put, they do not possess the jurisdiction to adjudicate on same.

3. In the case of the forfeiture, our Courts cannot sit on appeal on that issue. The PEPC will want to see it in black-and-white CONVICTION or CONVICTED. Conviction is a finding of guilt and then sentencing. His case might be some form of indictment and/or plea bargaining. Once the Conviction is not in plain, literal language, our Courts will not touch it.

4. On the dual citizenship issue, to add to what you wrote up there; Tinubu did not voluntarily acquire same but was conferred with the citizenship... "quoting then Guinean President Conde." Asides it been brought up past the initial 21 days, he that alleges must prove indeed he voluntarily acquired same contrary to Mr. Conde's claims. It is unclear if the passport is genuine or not.

5. The issue of Shettima's case is not whether what he did was wrong or not. It is who has the jurisdiction to sue.

6. INEC not transmitting results as positioned in its own regulations is the main ground I intend to see how it happens.

You need to get a diploma in law or something close.

Talking of number 6,what is the proof that inec did not transmit results? What does transmission means? Is it transmitted to irev or inec server? It is even similar to the server issue of 2019

DatNiggaDaz:
You made a thread, about to ask what "does substantial noncompliance means " and ended up saying PO dis PO dat.

Your bias is already showing or hate or tribalism, don't know what it is. So pls rest oga. Leave it to the court . It is already in court bro

I hail you o.

I am trying to educate obidients on the futility of the case.even the apex court once said trying to cancel a presidential poll is impossible

garfield1:
I am trying to educate obidients on the futility of the case.even the apex court once said trying to cancel a presidential poll is impossible

You are a funny human specie

You're a small boy

garfield1:
Not true.results on irev shows that tinubu won son.

DMerciful:
You're a small boy

Bigger than you and obi

DatNiggaDaz:
You are a funny human specie

Yes but truthful.obi will fail woefully

garfield1:
Yes but truthful.obi will fail woefully

Ok

garfield1:
Talking of number 6,what is the proof that inec did not transmit results? What does transmission means? Is it transmitted to irev or inec server? It is even similar to the server issue of 2019

Look at EA 60(5) allows the PO to transmit results as prescribed by the Commission.

EA 62(1): says after the announcement and recording, the PO under heavy security will submit the election materials.

These provisions seem to me to be manual. The EA never at any point upheld transmission of results electronically except in accreditation.

EA 60(1-6) described the process of counting and announcement of results.

S64(4-6) brought in the technological device wrt accreditation ONLY (the one in bold for emphasis), only if there is a dispute by the collation office.

Even the INEC Regulations states that;
38. Upon the completion of the polling unit voting and results procedure, the Presiding Officer shall:

(i)Electronically transmit or transfer the result of the Polling Unit direct to the collation system as prescribed by the Commission.

This means that votes have been counted, announced then transmitted to the collation centre.

What I am trying to say is that even the transmission of results does not overtake the processes of 60 & 62 of the EA. That I believe should be the primary moment as the INEC guidelines though having the force of law is a subsidiary legislation.

In Nkwegu v Umahi, Wike v Peterside, the SC was clear that the regulations cannot overtake the provisions of the Act itself.

It is clear there is some conflict between the Act itself and the Regulations and obvious which will win.

What it means is if there is Form EC8A, alongside IReV, the better but for issues of nullification or non-transmission of results, I don't think that's strong enough.

chidiokay:
In an election that involves 3 strong candidates in the south, how did Peter OBi know the votes that went to Tinubu where his votes, and how did Peter Know Atiku didnt steal his vote,

Rivers and plateau are PDP stronghold, APc and E LU Pee should be the suspect,

Peter Obi petitons are laughable when you begin to ask rhetorics, he needs to understand the last election unlike other elections ended four man race, you can just single out the winner, everybody is a suspect including Peter Obi

If 100 votes were shared between 3 strong candidates, candidate PO got 50 votes, candidate AA got 30 votes while candidate BT got 20 votes, but the umpire announces falsely that candidate PO got 20 votes, candidate AA got 30 votes while candidate BT got 50 votes, is it not obvious that candidate PO's votes were given to candidate BT?

It's simple math.

fergie001:
Look at EA 60(5) allows the PO to transmit results as prescribed by the Commission.

EA 62(1): says after the announcement and recording, the PO under heavy security will submit the election materials.

These provisions seem to me to be manual. The EA never at any point upheld transmission of results electronically except in accreditation.

EA 60(1-6) described the process of counting and announcement of results.

S64(4-6) brought in the technological device wrt accreditation ONLY (the one in bold for emphasis), only if there is a dispute by the collation office.

Even the INEC Regulations states that;
38. Upon the completion of the polling unit voting and results procedure, the Presiding Officer shall:

(i)Electronically transmit or transfer the result of the Polling Unit direct to the collation system as prescribed by the Commission.

This means that votes have been counted, announced then transmitted to the collation centre.

What I am trying to say is that even the transmission of results does not overtake the processes of 60 & 62 of the EA. That I believe should be the primary moment as the INEC guidelines though having the force of law is a subsidiary legislation.

In Nkwegu v Umahi, Wike v Peterside, the SC was clear that the regulations cannot overtake the provisions of the Act itself.

It is clear there is some conflict between the Act itself and the Regulations and obvious which will win.

What it means is if there is Form EC8A, alongside IReV, the better but for issues of nullification or non-transmission of results, I don't think that's strong enough.

There is no conflict actually,the electoral act was clear.inec must accredit electronically but can transmit or collate however it wishes to whether manual or electronic.the guidelines is trying to force or mandate inec adhoc staffs to transmit electronically.and violation of the electoral guidelines is never a ground for nullifying elections

socialmediaman:
If 100 votes were shared between 3 strong candidates, candidate PO got 50 votes, candidate AA got 30 votes while candidate BT got 20 votes, but the umpire announces falsely that candidate PO got 20 votes, candidate AA got 30 votes while candidate BT got 50 votes, is it not obvious that candidate PO's votes were given to candidate BT?

It's simple math.

Theoretically,it is simple but you cannot prove this on a national scale.you can only prove it in smaller elections.how do you know which votes belong to obi,atiku or tinubu except you do forensics or recount?

garfield1:
Theoretically,it is simple but you cannot prove this on a national scale.you can only prove it in smaller elections.how do you know which votes belong to obi,atiku or tinubu except you do forensics or recount?

Recount and forensics were a thing of the past before BVAS. They don’t need recount or forensics if the BVAS machines captured the total votes. They just need to prove to the judge that the umpire announced incorrect results just like the example of the 100 votes I gave

socialmediaman:
He would have already done that by now. All he needs to do is present the documents and data and explain it to the court.

Example:
"In this 3,500 page document being presented to the court and sworn to be factual and true, we have analyzed data from 1,725 polling units in 3 states and proven that the data presented by INEC ( exhibit A attached) is different from what was captured by the BVAS (exhibit B attached) and our polling agents (exhibit C attached). Our conclusions using these data is that PO scored 6.1 votes while Tinubu scored 4.3 million votes."

I think both Atiku and Obi have less than 3 months out of the 6 months the case will be at the tribunal. Do you know how long it will take them to go through those ballots one by one and also the defendants will also want to do same after them. As it stands nothing will come out of the exercise. From 2016 e don’t see any rerun election even at the Governorship level not to talk of presidential election.

seanfer:
I think both Atiku and Obi have less than 3 months out of the 6 months the case will be at the tribunal. Do you know how long it will take them to go through those ballots one by one and also the defendants will also want to do same after them. As it stands nothing will come out of the exercise. From 2016 e don’t see any rerun election even at the Governorship level not to talk of presidential election.

Why do they have to go through ballot papers if the BVAS machines captured the total votes cast for each candidate? You’re describing elections before BVAS machines were introduced

socialmediaman:
Recount and forensics were a thing of the past before BVAS. They don’t need recount or forensics if the BVAS machines captured the total votes. They just need to prove to the judge that the umpire announced incorrect results just like the example of the 100 votes I gave

BVAS is for accreditation

garfield1:
Not true.results on irev shows that tinubu won son.

Do not waste your energy and time with these people

socialmediaman:
Recount and forensics were a thing of the past before BVAS. They don’t need recount or forensics if the BVAS machines captured the total votes. They just need to prove to the judge that the umpire announced incorrect results just like the example of the 100 votes I gave

You are not getting it.bvas only contains accreditation figures and pictures of result sheets taken by inec.it does not show details of who a voter voted as voters voted manually not through bvas.again,obi never inspected the bvas machines directly because inec needed to reconfigure them for guber polls.he only relied on server reports which is incomplete.therefore,forensics and recount are the only ways to prove who voted who

socialmediaman:
Why do they have to go through ballot papers if the BVAS machines captured the total votes cast for each candidate? You’re describing elections before BVAS machines were introduced

Will the BVAS show who each ballot belongs to among the candidates?
So far there is no over voting BVAS can decide the ballot.