Nakedtruths:

https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/598939-inec-refuses-to-provide-70-of-electoral-documents-obi-tells-court.html

Lol. I thought you’re a serious person. I asked for link to support your claim that INEC said they can’t produce form EC8A of the 18k polling units with blurry results but you gave me a link from May where LP made a general claim that INEC has not given them 70% of what they want. Below is the response of INEC lawyer from the same link:

Abubakar Mahmoud, INEC’s lawyer, expressed the electoral umpire’s readiness to cooperate with all parties in the petitions and the court.

Mr Mahmoud, a SAN, said Mr Obi’s legal team declined to attend a meeting that was called to streamline issues around documents to be tendered before the court.

“We agreed to meet on Monday and Tuesday (15 and 16 May). But on Monday, 15 May, I received a call that the Labour Party legal team had not turned up at the venue for the inspection of the documents,” Mahmoud told the court.

He clarified that LP was given some electoral documents in Rivers, “but they insisted on collecting all the documents that were required.

“The commission has not refused to produce any document,” Mr Mahmoud said.

So I ask again, provide a credible link to support your claim that INEC said they can’t produce the original form EC8A of the 18k polling units with blurry images on IREV. I’m waiting.

seunmsg:


INEC officials. And yes, there are lots of reasons for blurry images. If 18k snapped results are blurry out of 176k, then that’s an insignificant number. It’s a passmark for INEC and IREV.

Mumu man.

Spy360:

You have admitted that the INEC guidelines were not followed.

Does the electoral act empower INEC to develop a collation system? Yes.

INEC's failure to follow its own guidelines is a violation of the electoral act itself.

A school says you must obey your teacher.
Teacher gives instructions. A student then says I will disobey my teacher, it does not mean I disobey the school. The teacher is inferior to the school. Makes no sense.

Electoral act says INEC has the power to create her own guidelines which must be obeyed. The guidelines were not obeyed as you agree, but you turn back to say it is inferior to the electoral act. I can't even make sense out of it.

That same inec guidelines in regulation 93 says manual forms are superior to irev.the supreme court has severally stated that inec guidelines cannot be used to nullify elections.noreover obi has failed to prove how the guidelines was not followed

Spy360:

If you don't have a point just keep silent than dragging me up and down meaninglessly

Sharrap kid.swerve abeg.obi has failed,stop giving yourself unnecessary hope

seunmsg:

The problem with some of you guys is that you just read without understanding. That 18k results out of 176k uploaded to IREV were blurry doesn’t in anyway mean the actual results of the 18k polling units as recorded on form EC8A were blurry.

seunmsg, you have hit the nail on the head (again) with this.

However I fear you will not be able to convince Obidients about anything using logical thinking. Please don't stop trying to though because it makes wonderful entertainment seeing you taking them to school over abd over again.

I understand Obi's legal team's fascination with uploaded documentation. They know full well, as poor Mark Essien found out when Obidients were initially hailing him and then he suddenly turned to their most hated being on earth, that asking for the raw paper based results (which exists) wouldn't give them the information they so desire.

Hence Obi's legal team are swinging wildly in their quest to focus on blurred results on IREV and the Sever being down. Don't forget their petition also includes 25% in FCT, Guinean citizenship as well as drugs offences. Oh and Shettima double nomination to.

That the Judges are still letting them carry on with their charade is to me an indictment of our legal system.

That Obidients are still hoping anything favourable for their man will come out of this based on what has been happening so far at the Tribunal is the eighth wonder of the world.

We must do better as a country, all of us.

Nakedtruths:

Imagine this for a second, the witness is an ICT expert, what is his business with form ec8, which is manual. What is his job in INEC for 24 years, when the result from his expertise is blurry.

And how many times will INEC have to ring into una coconut head ... the election process was Manual

Clause 38 both (i) & (ii) made emphasis on "as prescribed by the commission"

if INEC prescribed a manual collation process and OBI is tackling the ICT route is that not a journey in futility,

Finally, all the results you find on IREV are taking by BVAS camera, its just like your phone camera, sometimes you take a shot nd you find it burry could be as a result of stains on the camera or the camera not well set.
Before you question the ICT or server, check the primary source i.e the BVAS, if it is clear on the Bvas and blurry on IREV portal that is were ICT as some explanation to do

ImperialYoruba:


Irev is a public service. So INEC gave commitment, promising transparency with the result. The result is a utility for public consumption. In such arrangements the commitment is treated as a service level . If Irev is not available they failed SLA (service level agreement). This does not mean the collated data at source lost validity.

By the way, what is the data? It is an ink stamped ballot paper. That is the data itself.

Is this what they put in Irev? NO.

Ink-stamped ballot papers, classified by party logo are counted at each polling unit and recorded on a form. The form is then endorsed by each party agent present. Over 176,000 polling units forwarded their endorsed forms to INEC. After adding all the reports on the forms to obtain result for each party and candidate the outcome is shared.

As part of its process improvement, INEC wants the collation of these reports and outcomes to be shared with public (Irev) in real time. This part of their process failed. Does this mean the ink-stamped ballots are no longer valid?

Validity & integrity of the data should not be faulted because INEC missed SLA.

Your points are well understood.

I think you attempt to divert the point that upload to IREV is part of the electoral guideline and you termed it SLA. It's a guideline not SLA. A SLA is a signed document between two or more parties. There was no SLA. In fact that would have been more terrible for INEC.

The aim of the PDP and LP is to show that the election was rigged in favour of APC. That after ballot counting at the PU, when they got to the ward centres the scores for LP were changed to favour APC. The argument is that this could not have happened if the IREV worked realtime, as everyone would have the original results on the website. Those mutilated results are the blurred results on IREV. Meaning that the IREV was there to ensure TRANSPARENCY not just public view. Someone was hiding something.

PDP and LP have obtained the CTCs of the EC8As from INEC. They revealed gross mutilations.

One may ask, what about the results issued to the agents? Will you be surprised of each of the agents bring their own versions of results mutilation? According to the SC judgement of Osun, the physical forms EC8As issued by INEC are the primary source evidence while the IREV report is the secondary, note that IREV report is BVAS report which has already been deleted by INEC in the guise of preparing for Governorship elections. INEC refused access to the BVAS and even deleted that of FCT that had no governorship election.

My question now is what should happen to the form EC8As that were mutilated? Should the court admit them like that without question?

Spy360:

Your points are well understood.

I think you attempt to divert the point that upload to IREV is part of the electoral guideline and you termed it SLA. It's a guideline not SLA. A SLA is a signed document between two or more parties. There was no SLA. In fact that would have been more terrible for INEC.

The aim of the PDP and LP is to show that the election was rigged in favour of APC. That after ballot counting at the PU, when they got to the ward centres the scores for LP were changed to favour APC. The argument is that this could not have happened if the IREV worked realtime, as everyone would have the original results on the website. Those mutilated results are the blurred results on IREV. Meaning that the IREV was there to ensure TRANSPARENCY not just public view. Someone was hiding something.

PDP and LP have obtained the CTCs of the EC8As from INEC. They revealed gross mutilations.

One may ask, what about the results issued to the agents? Will you be surprised of each of the agents bring their own versions of results mutilation? According to the SC judgement of Osun, the physical forms EC8As issued by INEC are the primary source evidence while the IREV report is the secondary, note that IREV report is BVAS report which has already been deleted by INEC in the guise of preparing for Governorship elections. INEC refused access to the BVAS and even deleted that of FCT that had no governorship election.

My question now is what should happen to the form EC8As that were mutilated? Should the court admit them like that without question?

Oga, guidelines cannot be used to nullify elections.
Secondly,rigging could have happened under any transmission whether electronic or manual.it is now left for you to prove it and show how it denied you victory substantially.did lp do that? NO.they are only assuming.
Lp only dumped physical result sheets in court.they failed to display or showcase the actual forms with irregularities,mutilations or blurriness.they only showed 18,000 blurred irev results.blurred results are different from mutilated results.blurred means unclear,mutilated means clear but with a lot of changes

garfield1:


Oga, guidelines cannot be used to nullify elections.
Secondly,rigging could have happened under any transmission whether electronic or manual.it is now left for you to prove it and show how it denied you victory substantially.did lp do that? NO.they are only assuming.
Lp only dumped physical result sheets in court.they failed to display or showcase the actual forms with irregularities,mutilations or blurriness.they only showed 18,000 blurred irev results.blurred results are different from mutilated results.blurred means unclear,mutilated means clear but with a lot of changes

Why then did INEC bring their ICT expert to defend themselves if there was nothing to defend and IREV means nothing?

Play on.

seunmsg:


Evidence of the discrepancies?

The blurred result

seunmsg:


They are blurry only on IREV. The real form EC8A results for the 18k units are not blurry. They are very clear and they were used in collating the results. Results were not collated on IREV.

We saw how APC mutilated them. That is the reason they blurred them.

Why weren't senate and rep results for those PUs blurred?

IamAtikulate:

The blurred result

There is no blurred result in real life. It only existed on IREV.

tinsel:

There are physical copies where INEC did their calculations and tabulations at the collection center. Guy understand what is IReV. Whether uploaded or not it has no impact on the results announced by INEC.

And they couldnt present those physical copies when they were subpoenaed? Are you not following the proceedings?

Those are suppose to be forms EC8A and they are suppose to tally with what's on IREV.
INEC only wants to present EC8D. No be juju be that?

Form EC8A - for Polling Unit
Form EC8B - for ward collation
Form EC8C - for LGA
Form EC8D - for State and
Form EC8E for National collation.

Understand the forms and you will get the logic. Only forms EC8A will give a true clarification of what happened

seunmsg:


There is no blurred result in real life. It only existed on IREV.

Why was it blurred?

Because the real result was mutilated.

IamAtikulate:

Why was it blurred?

Because the real result was mutilated.

No,because bvas camera was faulty or the snapping was poor

garfield1:


No,because bvas camera was faulty or the snapping was poor

But it was clear for senate and Rep results?

garfield1:


That same inec guidelines in regulation 93 says manual forms are superior to irev.the supreme court has severally stated that inec guidelines cannot be used to nullify elections.noreover obi has failed to prove how the guidelines was not followed

Listen, obi/labour is not contesting the outcome of the election, They're contesting the process. If INEC in its guidelines said results will be transmitted in real time, did they do that?, No, that's violation of their guidelines and thereby the electoral law . INEC also needs to prove to the court how they came to the conclusion that TINUBU won, that's what is being contested not collation.

Nakedtruths:

Listen, obi/labour is not contesting the outcome of the election, They're contesting the process. If INEC in its guidelines said results will be transmitted in real time, did they do that?, No, that's violation of their guidelines and thereby the electoral law . INEC also needs to prove to the court how they came to the conclusion that TINUBU won, that's what is being contested not collation.

Inec is following electoral law which supercedes guidelines.inec used form ec8a to declare tinubu

IamAtikulate:

But it was clear for senate and Rep results?

Some of them were also blurry.why not follow the senate and reps cases

chidiokay:




And how many times will INEC have to ring into una coconut head ... the election process was Manual

Clause 38 both (i) & (ii) made emphasis on "as prescribed by the commission"

if INEC prescribed a manual collation process and OBI is tackling the ICT route is that not a journey in futility,

Finally, all the results you find on IREV are taking by BVAS camera, its just like your phone camera, sometimes you take a shot nd you find it burry could be as a result of stains on the camera or the camera not well set.
Before you question the ICT or server, check the primary source i.e the BVAS, if it is clear on the Bvas and blurry on IREV portal that is were ICT as some explanation to do

"As prescribed by INEC" is real time transmission of results not prescribed by INEC in its guidelines?. Oga nobody is contesting outcome of election, no one is saying TINUBU did not win,(if INEC said so) the question is, how did he win. If INEC guidelines state that election would be transmitted in real time and did not do that, is that not a violation it's guidelines?. Use your coconut head to think. Your eyes is on the final results, our eyes is on the process that led to the final results. You see that's the difference.
YOU SOLVE MATHS AND GET THE ANSWER, BUT WURUWURU TO THE ANSWER WON'T BE ACCEPTED.

garfield1:


Inec is following electoral law which supercedes guidelines.inec used form ec8a to declare tinubu

You are not being reasonable, and I perceive you are just being miscellaneous.
The law state that, INEC can chose how they want the election to be conducted (that's law right?)
Now, INEC now choses how and tells the players, then now renegade on the guidelines they set up as empowered by the constitution. Is that not violation of the constitution?
Or you want to tell me that you don't understand that violation of INEC's guidelines is a violation of the constitution?

seunmsg:


INEC officials. And yes, there are lots of reasons for blurry images. If 18k snapped results are blurry out of 176k, then that’s an insignificant number. It’s a passmark for INEC and IREV.

Are they saying the original irev sheets with them were blurred? Lmao. Funny stuff. There's nothing blurry about the irev sheets. Snapping them could be another thing but the original collated irev sheets itself? Clear as daylight! Even the River's one was brought out and necessary reverse was made to the changes on it while collating because it was quite visible/clear as daylight. The person making such claim is quite stupid or bribed to make such stupid claim which is even inconsequential because the irev had been collated, including the River state one which had been reversed. I hope they realise they could get jailed for such inconsequential stupid claim?

Anyway, the irev sheets have been checked and collated and we know Tinubu won the election as seen on irev. Atiku and Obi should rather be contending for who got the second position before even disputing the first position.

Novarisammy2:
no wonder gartfield refused to continue with the court proceedings today

Leave that guy. I used to think he was an unbiased commentator. I just found he is one of the supporters of criminality disguised as a knowledgeable person.

Nakedtruths:

You are not being reasonable, and I perceive you are just being miscellaneous.
The law state that, INEC can chose how they want the election to be conducted (that's law right?)
Now, INEC now choses how and tells the players, then now renegade on the guidelines they set up as empowered by the constitution. Is that not violation of the constitution?
Or you want to tell me that you don't understand that violation of INEC's guidelines is a violation of the constitution?

The supreme court in wike vs dakuku and okereke vs umahi said a violation of inec guidelines is not a ground for nullifying polls.inec guidelines said inec should use card readers and server in 2019 but the courts rejected them.inec guidelines is not mandatory..
Besides,tried to use electronic transmission but because of glitches,network failures and operational challenges,it was impossible.they switched to manual transmission.but they still succeeded in eventually transmitting and uploading.by the way,lp failed to prove non transmission

garfield1:


Oga, guidelines cannot be used to nullify elections.
Secondly,rigging could have happened under any transmission whether electronic or manual.it is now left for you to prove it and show how it denied you victory substantially.did lp do that? NO.they are only assuming.
Lp only dumped physical result sheets in court.they failed to display or showcase the actual forms with irregularities,mutilations or blurriness.they only showed 18,000 blurred irev results.blurred results are different from mutilated results.blurred means unclear,mutilated means clear but with a lot of changes

You seem to be a very intelligent chap, your analysis and arguments portray an individual with design thinking.

However either your passion or loyalty creates a bias that makes you not utilise your design thinking to full potential.

The Electoral law dictates that collation is to be referenced from results on IREV, or lemme put it this way; the results on IREV(which is publicly available) are to take precedence over every other results at ward level.

Therefore, if 18,000 Results are blurred, it means collation of results at ward level would have no reference point and the possibilities to inflate figures now exist (INEC said this themselves, which is why IREV was created).

Oga if there is a possibility that 18,000 results are possibly incorrect, due to the inavailability of cross referencing, is the process not already flawed?

If you ask me 18,000 is a very significant statistical figure from the total result sheets, if errors were present. How did they arrive at a conclusion in the presence of such errors?

To be honest,
It's easier to defend the devil, than to actually defend the flawed nature of INEC's process which cost Nigeria 500Billion.

seunmsg:






The problem with some of you guys is that you just read without understanding. That 18k results out of 176k uploaded to IREV were blurry doesn’t in anyway mean the actual results of the 18k polling units as recorded on form EC8A were blurry.

For crying out loud results were not collated from IREV. Read the testimony of the INEC witness that I posted on the first page of this thread and stop making ignorant comments.

18k represents about 10% of the total results uploaded to IREV. These are results snapped by various INEC adhoc officials who were barely trained on how to handle BVAS. Even people who use their phones daily still end up snapping blurry pictures. So, if 176k pictures were taken and 90% came out good, is that not a passmark?

Finally, results from the 18k polling units with blurry pictures on IREV were collated. Those results were not excluded like you guys are ignorantly trying to portray. The original form EC8A are not blurry and they were manually collated across the different collation centers.

Mr. Understand, I hope this time around you read and overstand.

The physical form EC8A were suppose to tally with what's on IREV, but here we have discrepancies. It gets even more interesting considering the fact that they were not uploaded in real time. What stops INEC from deleting the blurry ones and uploading the clear copies? 🤷🏿‍♂️

18k PU results does not equate to about 10% of total results. 18k PU results represents a little bit more than 10% of total results of the PUs-176,996 to be exact.

The voters threshold for 2023 elections were 500 and 750 for the lowest and highest PU respectively. Most likely we are looking at 625 voters or more in a PU.

The 2023 elections witnessed about 26% voters turnout. In context, we are talking about 162.5 voters showing up to cast their votes out of 625 voters from a PU. When we consider 18k PU, we are talking about manipulation of 2,925,000 votes via illegal interference. And you call that number and such electoral fraud insignificant?

Below are the results of the election:
APC 8,794,726
PDP 6,984,520
LP 6,101,533

The difference btw the 1st and 2nd is 1,810, 206.
The difference btw the 1st and 3rd is 2,693, 193.

None of the the difference equates number of votes from those 18k PUs. We all want to know what INEC did with those votes. If the form EC8A on IREV is blurry, INEC should have provided the physical form EC8A when they opened up their defence. Don't you think so?🤔

If you were following the proceedings, you should have noticed that INEC were subpoenaed severally to provide physical forms EC8A. However, INEC were only willing to provide form EC8D.they kept insisting that LP were contesting states not PUs. You will agree with me that EC8A is the only form that will give one a true picture of what the election results were like. They carry minute (PU) details and are likely to be more accurate than EC8B, EC8C, andEC8D. Why are they scared of providing EC8A?

Truth is most EC8As are either mutilated or distorted during the process of sabotage and illegal interference just to give the APC an undue advantage. INEC cannot present those forms physically in court. Once they do that, the case is done and dusted

Nakedtruths:

"As prescribed by INEC" is real time transmission of results not prescribed by INEC in its guidelines?. Oga nobody is contesting outcome of election, no one is saying TINUBU did not win,(if INEC said so) the question is, how did he win. If INEC guidelines state that election would be transmitted in real time and did not do that, is that not a violation it's guidelines?. Use your coconut head to think. Your eyes is on the final results, our eyes is on the process that led to the final results. You see that's the difference.
YOU SOLVE MATHS AND GET THE ANSWER, BUT WURUWURU TO THE ANSWER WON'T BE ACCEPTED.

INEC prescribed two options, electronic transmission or Transfer i.e manual

clause 38 of inec regulation speculate upon completion of voting & announcing results at the polling units the presiding officer shall

electronically transmit or transfer the results from polling units to the collation system as prescribed by INEC

"OR" denotes transfer is an alternative, so you & your likes need to stop arguing as if electronic transmission was the only option enlisted.

There are toyota suv that have two gears, automatic and manual, the driver can decide to use anyone and the car will give same outcome. those options by design makes whatever the driver do justifiable

Question of the day : is IREV a collation system ??

I was even monitoring the collating by Essien back then, he was collating all the irev while reversing the changes made on any of them, such as the River state for example. It was after the collation, that was when I affirmed that Tinubu won. Essien had even started the irev collation because he thought it would favour Obi until he realised Tinubu won. Peter Obi and Atiku should rather go contend the second position between them before even disputing the first position.

Spy360:

Your points are well understood.

I think you attempt to divert the point that upload to IREV is part of the electoral guideline and you termed it SLA. It's a guideline not SLA. A SLA is a signed document between two or more parties. There was no SLA. In fact that would have been more terrible for INEC.

The aim of the PDP and LP is to show that the election was rigged in favour of APC. That after ballot counting at the PU, when they got to the ward centres the scores for LP were changed to favour APC. The argument is that this could not have happened if the IREV worked realtime, as everyone would have the original results on the website. Those mutilated results are the blurred results on IREV. Meaning that the IREV was there to ensure TRANSPARENCY not just public view. Someone was hiding something.

PDP and LP have obtained the CTCs of the EC8As from INEC. They revealed gross mutilations.

One may ask, what about the results issued to the agents? Will you be surprised of each of the agents bring their own versions of results mutilation? According to the SC judgement of Osun, the physical forms EC8As issued by INEC are the primary source evidence while the IREV report is the secondary, note that IREV report is BVAS report which has already been deleted by INEC in the guise of preparing for Governorship elections. INEC refused access to the BVAS and even deleted that of FCT that had no governorship election.

My question now is what should happen to the form EC8As that were mutilated? Should the court admit them like that without question?

LP and PDP are yet to produce a single mutilated EC8 in court, even though they allege forms were mutilated. There are two points from which petitioners can defeat INEC and prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.

1. Present evidence at source. EC8 is the father of all collated results, it seeded the addition process.

2. Raw data, order a live recount in affected places. Ink stamped ballots in the places they allege rigging took place, recount their ballots.

If EC8 is wrong, as they allege, then BVAS is wrong and Irev is wrong. So why are they trying to prove Irev wrong? Misplaced strategy.

They should have gone after ballot recount, and prove rigging.

Nakedtruths:

May be you should ask for clarification from your end. Inec said they don't have, so couldn't provide it as at when it was needed

How logical does it sound to you that INEC will say they dont have EC8? Even if you hear someone make such statement you no go look dem funny?

So what is in all those stacks of boxes LP brought to court, if not EC8?

HIGHESTPOPORI:
Peter Obi stolen mandate will be restored

What do you....other that your above comments....you better go sell market and have sth to feed yourself....

DOptical:
I was even monitoring the collating by Essien back then, he was collating all the irev while reversing the changes made on any of them, such as the River state for example. It was after the collation, that was when I affirmed that Tinubu won. Essien had even started the irev collation because he thought it would favour Obi until he realised Tinubu won. Peter Obi and Atiku should rather go contend the second position between them before even disputing the first position.

Essien said based on what he had at the time(which was - 18,000), Tinubu won.

Let's not also forget that as at the time Essien was collating, the results on IREV were at 83%.

And that right there is the argument, if one uses the results on IREV currently, Tinubu will win, because 18,000 results can not be read.

So do we ignore 18,000 results?