₦airaland Forum

ExudeLoveToAll:
Learn to communicate sanely, it's just a kind advice. Have a good time.

You are rude and disrepectiful to me. Who is your mate? Who do you think you are?

It baffles me how one slowpoke that doesn't always have electricity in his village, once he has the opportunity to charge his tecno phone will turn to supreme court judge suddenly.

The same fools hope you hard before primaries, during campaign beating your bone chest on social media that we shall know they stuff una made of, election pass , still you enter tribunal instead of showing the tribunal facts that you won, you went there hallucinating. Now you have even turn to the final judge announcing the final verdict


Awon ashiere

duro4chang:
Lie lie lie . Nothing can happen. Nobody, no court can remove Tinubu.

Yes o! Jagaban stole the election "fair and square" !!

SmartPolician:
If Tinubu is ordered to leave Aso Rock, Nigeria's democracy won't be destabilised. He will stay in office and appeal the case. If he loses at the appeal court, he will push it until it gets to the Supreme Court while he maintains his position as president.

If the Supreme Court orders him to leave the office and he refuses, he and his wife will be flung out of Aso Rock through the window! A Nigerian politician may think he's above the law, but not when his stay in office is questioned or declared unconstitutional

Fools hope

ebufa:
Yes o! Jagaban stole the election "fair and square" !!

Continue saying it everywhere like crazeman

ebufa:
Yes o! Jagaban stole the election "fair and square" !!

Obi your lord and saviour is a thief. A liar. A bigot. He will never be president.

duro4chang:
Lie lie lie . Nothing can happen. Nobody, no court can remove Tinubu.

duro4chang:
Lie lie lie . Nothing can happen. Nobody, no court can remove Tinubu.

u go cry when e go sup

Nobodyfit2:

u go cry when e go sup

You are talking trash. Something must be wrong with you.

Penguin2:
Glad to see you here….
Have you seen the Supreme Court making reference to INEC Guidelines in their judgment? Because you people have been of the view that the court will only depend on the constitution and Electoral Act; that INEC Guidelines have no legal probity.

I don't know where you read I said the INEC Guidelines had no legal backing.

Please calm down.

Now let me react ...
The INEC guidelines is a subsidiary legislation. What I mean is that it is a delegated legislation, backed by law but will bow to the Electoral Act or Constitution, if there is some inconsistency or ambiguity. The reason is simple, the Electoral Act is a product of the National Assembly whilst the guidelines are regulations set out by the Commission even though they are empowered by the S149 of the EA.

This judgement I have read since last month over and over again have not said anything differently from what we all know.

After voting, results are counted and entered into Form EC8A. The PO signs and stamps the Form EC series. The results are scanned by the same BVAS machine that was used for the accreditation and expectedly transmitted.

Duplicate Copies are given to PU agents and the Police, if I am right. Where during collation, there is inconsistency in results, the IReV results prevail.

See, the Primary copy is the form EC8A. That is the unshakeable hardcopy evidence.

INEC Regulations 48. (a) An election result shall only be collated if the Collation Officer ascertains that the number of accredited voters agrees with the number recorded in the BVAS and votes scored by Political Parties on the result sheet is correct and agrees with the result electronically transmitted or transferred directly from the Polling Unit as prescribed in these Regulations and Guidelines.

(b)If a Collation or Returning Officer determines that a result from a lower level of collation is not correct, he/ she shall use the result electronically transmitted or transferred directly from that lower level to collate and announce the result.

(c)if no result has been directly transmitted electronically for a polling unit or any level of collation, the provision of Clause 93 of these Regulations shall be applied.

(92) At every level of collation, where the INEC copy of collated results from the immediate lower level of collation exists, it shall be adopted for collation.

(93)Where the INEC hardcopy of collated results from the immediate lower level of collation does not exist, the Collation Officer shall use electronically transmitted results or results from the IReV portal to continue collation. Where none of these exist, the Collation Officer shall ask for duplicate hardcopies issued by the Commission to the following bodies in the order below: (i) The Nigeria Police Force; and (ii) Agents of Political Parties.

See INEC Regulations (91)The following principles shall guide the collation of election results:

(i)Voting takes place at Polling Units. Therefore, Forms EC8A and EC60E are the building blocks for any collation of results;

All these are products or an extended explanation of S60 of the Electoral Act.

48(c) shows there is a possibility that results might not be uploaded due to network or human/machine error.

A combined reading of 91-93 shows the impenetrability and indomitability of the Form EC8A.

Check the underlined... Where the hardcopy doesn't exist! That shows the Primary status of Form EC8A.

I have seen that the petitioners may panelbeat S64(5) of the Electoral Act:
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.

In the interpretation of statutes, words should be given their ordinary and literal construction or meaning.

This section has simply said 'if the collation is not correct'. It is now incumbent on the petitioners to present before the Court, the PUs where this seeming anomaly took place. Places like Lagos, Rivers and so on so that the tribunal will scrutinise their anyhowness. That is, in areas where there is some inconsistency between the accreditation, form EC8A and uploaded results on IReV.

A peer review shows the EA has given more teeth to S47 of the EA concerning accreditation.

Is this enough reason to cancel the Presidential Election?
Is it enough to prove substantial non-compliance?

Not in my honest opinion.

IReV is important for transparency and public viewing of results, I will advocate amendment to give more teeth to IReV, this time a more mandatory and forceful one.

INEC nonetheless needs to be berated for failing in its moral responsibility of uploading results in seeming and brazen malfeasance and furthermore hiding under legal technicalities. It is important that we continue to strengthen our laws to ensure a better and tamper-proof election.

Lotanna2

duro4chang:
Lie lie lie . Nothing can happen. Nobody, no court can remove Tinubu.

God punish tinubu

Strafudeen:
God punish tinubu

Back to the sender

Lotanna2:
Both constitution and electoral act are superior to the guidelines and will take precedence in the case of confusion,ambiguity or clash.the court only uses guidelines when it is in tandem with the electoral act.
From that portion of the judgment,jsc agim clearly said the guidelines never demanded for real time transmission but transmission after election without specific time frame.the guideline further stated during collation, transmitted and manual copies must be used for collation in case of discrepancies.obi never brought evidence showing transmitted copies were not used during collation and he also called only one adhoc staffs.therefore,this portion of his prayer fails

Even a layman knows that when dispute arises between the constitution, an Act of the National Assembly and any bye laws, that the Constitution takes precedence followed by the Act of the National Assembly.

But I have not seen, or refuse to believe that any of INEC’s Guidelines runs contrary to the provisions of the Electoral Act nor the Constitution.

There’s nothing contradicting the Constitution or the EA about results upload which INEC failed to do.

Again, you can see the Supreme Court making reference to, in dispute, comparing the physical result of form EC8A to the Electronically Transmitted or Transferred Results (those were their words).

Now, with about 18,088 blurred results sheet, plus some thousands others yet to be uploaded, what did INEC compare forms EC8As with at lower level collation centers when dispute arose?

duro4chang:
You are talking trash. Something must be wrong with you.

duro4chang:
You are talking trash. Something must be wrong with you.

cry baby

Tinubu is doing well . But obi is better

Penguin2:
Even a layman knows that when dispute arises between the constitution, an Act of the National Assembly and any bye laws, that the Constitution takes precedence followed by the Act of the National Assembly.

But I have not seen, or refuse to believe that any of INEC’s Guidelines runs contrary to the provisions of the Electoral Act nor the Constitution.

There’s nothing contradicting the Constitution or the EA about results upload which INEC failed to do.

Again, you can see the Supreme Court making reference to, in dispute, comparing the physical result of form EC8A to the Electronically Transmitted or Transferred Results (those were their words).

Now, with about 18,088 blurred results sheet, plus some thousands others yet to be uploaded, what did INEC compare forms EC8As with at lower level collation centers when dispute arose?

Always missing the point.in the eyes of the law,all inec did was regular.it is now left for obi to prove that inec did not compare results at collation.obi himself failed to compare irev with manual forms

fx45:
Bola Adekunle Tinumbu is not the ECOWAS Chairman, the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is.... Do you get it? If he's kicked out tomorrow, whoever replaces him assumes the office.

Kick out the president of Nigeria and ecowas chairman 🤣

My friend go and do stand up and stop wasting your talent on nairaland

fergie001:
I don't know where you read I said the INEC Guidelines had no legal backing.

Please calm down.

Now let me react ...
The INEC guidelines is a subsidiary legislation. What I mean is that it is a delegated legislation, backed by law but will bow to the Electoral Act or Constitution, if there is some inconsistency or ambiguity. The reason is simple, the Electoral Act is a product of the National Assembly whilst the guidelines are regulations set out by the Commission even though they are empowered by the S149 of the EA.

This judgement I have read since last month over and over again have not said anything differently from what we all know.

After voting, results are counted and entered into Form EC8A. The PO signs and stamps the Form EC series. The results are scanned by the same BVAS machine that was used for the accreditation and expectedly transmitted.

Duplicate Copies are given to PU agents and the Police, if I am right. Where during collation, there is inconsistency in results, the IReV results prevail.

See, the Primary copy is the form EC8A. That is the unshakeable hardcopy evidence.

INEC Regulations 48. (a) An election result shall only be collated if the Collation Officer ascertains that the number of accredited voters agrees with the number recorded in the BVAS and votes scored by Political Parties on the result sheet is correct and agrees with the result electronically transmitted or transferred directly from the Polling Unit as prescribed in these Regulations and Guidelines.

(b)If a Collation or Returning Officer determines that a result from a lower level of collation is not correct, he/ she shall use the result electronically transmitted or transferred directly from that lower level to collate and announce the result.

(c)if no result has been directly transmitted electronically for a polling unit or any level of collation, the provision of Clause 93 of these Regulations shall be applied.

(92) At every level of collation, where the INEC copy of collated results from the immediate lower level of collation exists, it shall be adopted for collation.

(93)Where the INEC hardcopy of collated results from the immediate lower level of collation does not exist, the Collation Officer shall use electronically transmitted results or results from the IReV portal to continue collation. Where none of these exist, the Collation Officer shall ask for duplicate hardcopies issued by the Commission to the following bodies in the order below: (i) The Nigeria Police Force; and (ii) Agents of Political Parties.

See INEC Regulations (91)The following principles shall guide the collation of election results:

(i)Voting takes place at Polling Units. Therefore, Forms EC8A and EC60E are the building blocks for any collation of results;

All these are products or an extended explanation of S60 of the Electoral Act.

48(c) shows there is a possibility that results might not be uploaded due to network or human/machine error.

A combined reading of 91-93 shows the impenetrability and indomitability of the Form EC8A.

Check the underlined... Where the hardcopy doesn't exist! That shows the Primary status of Form EC8A.

I have seen that the petitioners may panelbeat S64(5) of the Electoral Act:
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.

In the interpretation of statutes, words should be given their ordinary and literal construction or meaning.

This section has simply said 'if the collation is not correct'. It is now incumbent on the petitioners to present before the Court, the PUs where this seeming anomaly took place. Places like Lagos, Rivers and so on so that the tribunal will scrutinise their anyhowness. That is, in areas where there is some inconsistency between the accreditation, form EC8A and uploaded results on IReV.

A peer review shows the EA has given more teeth to S47 of the EA concerning accreditation.

Is this enough reason to cancel the Presidential Election?
Is it enough to prove substantial non-compliance?

Not in my honest opinion.

IReV is important for transparency and public viewing of results, I will advocate amendment to give more teeth to IReV, this time a more mandatory and forceful one.

INEC nonetheless needs to be berated for failing in its moral responsibility of uploading results in seeming and brazen malfeasance and furthermore hiding under legal technicalities. It is important that we continue to strengthen our laws to ensure a better and tamper-proof election.

It’s not my intention to drag you into another round of back and forth.

But one thing I need to clarify is that I’m not being emotional about anything. There were obvious infractions during the election; this much has been confirmed by even the European Union 🇪🇺. So I find it abhorrable that you would consider my constant reechoing of this obvious reality as being emotional.

I know you would want to make reference to how it was in 2003, 2007 and 2019. But that infractions were tolerated then and people took it with equanimity doesn’t mean we should continue to walk in that path.

INEC failed to adhere to the Constitution, the Electoral Act and their own Guidelines. This should be punished.

The only reason I called your attention here is because I wanted you to see that INEC guidelines is justiciable in law unlike the narrative that you and Garfield have been pushing; that the court will only look at the constitution and the EA.

See, 2023 presidential election cannot stand, no matter how some of you try to rationalize the criminality that took place that day.

Lotanna2:
Always missing the point.in the eyes of the law,all inec did was regular.it is now left for obi to prove that inec did not compare results at collation.obi himself failed to compare irev with manual forms

And 18,088 blurred results that even INEC witness admitted in court is also regular in law?

Penguin2:
And 18,088 blurred results that even INEC witness admitted in court is also regular in law?

Did they compare with other copies as specified by law?

The only thing that would have changed the whole case is if Amazon sent their technical team from Amazon HQ in US to present to the court the health status of their server on that election day to show that their server had no glitches on the election day as claimed by INEC.



With that, Appeal court would have canceled the election on the grounds of "INEC not following its own electoral guidelines in conducting the election", which is one of the key reasons for an election to be cancelled under the electoral act.




But since Amazon didn't send an official representative, INEC will hold on to the fact that their result upload and viewing servers had glitches as they already claimed in court, reason they decided not to use the IREV. But then, why did the result of NASS uploaded successfully but Presidential refused to upload even though the elections were conducted same day, same time?



The answer is, INEC have a backend server that collates the election results from polling units as they are being uploaded from polling units nationwide, and this server shows the result as a graph, showing leading candidates and the margins. So as Yakubu and his evil cohorts who have been compromised by Tinubu saw that the outcome of the results coming in wasn't favouring Tinubu, they quickly turned off the result upload feature for Presidential election results and started their own abracadabra

franchasofficia:
The only thing that would have changed the whole case is if Amazon sent their technical team from Amazon HQ in US to present to the court the health status of their server on that election day to show that their server had no glitches on the election day as claimed by INEC.



With that, Appeal court would have canceled the election on the grounds of "INEC not following its own electoral guidelines in conducting the election", which is one of the key reasons for an election to be cancelled under the electoral act.




But since Amazon didn't send an official representative, INEC will hold on to the fact that their result upload and viewing servers had glitches as they already claimed in court, reason they decided not to use the IREV. But then, why did the result of NASS uploaded successfully but Presidential refused to upload even though the elections were conducted same day, same time?



The answer is, INEC have a backend server that collates the election results from polling units as they are being uploaded from polling units nationwide, and this server shows the result as a graph, showing leading candidates and the margins. So as Yakubu and his ecil cohorts who have been compromised by Tinubu saw that the outcome of the results coming in wasn't favouring Tinubu, they quickly turned off the result upload feature for Presidential election results and started their own abracadabra

Any proof?

Penguin2:
It’s not my intention to drag you into another round of back and forth.

But one thing I need to clarify is that I’m not being emotional about anything. There were obvious infractions during the election; this much has been confirmed by even the European Union 🇪🇺. So I find it abhorrable that you would consider my constant reechoing of this obvious reality as being emotional.

I know you would want to make reference to how it was in 2003, 2007 and 2019. But that infractions were tolerated then and people took it with equanimity doesn’t mean we should continue to walk in that path.

INEC failed to adhere to the Constitution, the Electoral Act and their own Guidelines. This should be punished.

The only reason I called your attention here is because I wanted you to see that INEC guidelines is justiciable in law unlike the narrative that you and Garfield have been pushing; that the court will only look at the constitution and the EA.

See, 2023 presidential election cannot stand, no matter how some of you try to rationalize the criminality that took place that day.

What stopped obi from tendering manual results showing how he won or where they were massive rigging?

Lotanna2:
Any proof?

Any proof of what?

Lotanna2:
What stopped obi from tendering manual results showing how he won or where they were massive rigging?

If INEC have a clear hands in all of this, why was it difficult for INEC to grant Peter Obi and LP access to the CTC of the form EC8A or so which Obi asked for and also paid for?



Even if a candidate's party doesn't have enough party agents to cover all polling units nationwide, the law demands that INEC grants any candidate or party access to the CTC of form EC8A they used in collating and announcing winner.



INEC refused to issue this Peter Obi simply because they have hidden skeletons in their cupboard.



It is clear to the blind but of course the beneficiary of evil will never admit that an evil act is evil

franchasofficia:
If INEC have a clear hands in all of this, why was it difficult for INEC to grant Peter Obi and LP access to the CTC of the form EC8A or so which Obi asked for and also paid for?



Even if a candidate's party doesn't have enough party agents to cover all polling units nationwide, the law demands that INEC grants any candidate or party access to the CTC of form EC8A they used in collating and announcing winner.



INEC refused to issue this Peter Obi simply because they have hidden skeletons in their cupboard.



It is clear to the blind but of course the beneficiary of evil will never admit that an evil act is evil

In summary,obi failed to prove his case

franchasofficia:
Any proof of what?

That is was rigged and places rigged

Penguin2:
It’s not my intention to drag you into another round of back and forth.

But one thing I need to clarify is that I’m not being emotional about anything. There were obvious infractions during the election; this much has been confirmed by even the European Union 🇪🇺. So I find it abhorrable that you would consider my constant reechoing of this obvious reality as being emotional.

I know you would want to make reference to how it was in 2003, 2007 and 2019. But that infractions were tolerated then and people took it with equanimity doesn’t mean we should continue to walk in that path.

INEC failed to adhere to the Constitution, the Electoral Act and their own Guidelines. This should be punished.

The only reason I called your attention here is because I wanted you to see that INEC guidelines is justiciable in law unlike the narrative that you and Garfield have been pushing; that the court will only look at the constitution and the EA.

See, 2023 presidential election cannot stand, no matter how some of you try to rationalize the criminality that took place that day.

This is the simple truth, nothing but the truth.



INEC failed to follow its own election guidelines which gave many candidates and even voters the boldness and assurance that their vote would count and made many risked their lives to ensure they cast their votes.



If Nigerians and many candidates of the last election knew that INEC wouldn't follow their guidelines, especially the upload of result in realtime, believe me, many candidates wouldn't have contested and those that did wouldn't have put in much effort, and millions of Nigerians wouldn't have bothered going out to vote cos Nigeria's election is usually rigged during result collation.



So the introduction of the result upload direct from polling units as the election was going on gave Nigerians the confidence that their vote would count in 2023 Presidential and Governorship elections.

Lotanna2:
That is was rigged and places rigged

Did INEC follow its own 2023 Presidential election guidelines or not? Can you answer this sincerely?

franchasofficia:
Did INEC follow its own 2023 Presidential election guidelines or not? Can you answer this sincerely?

It followed electoral act which is superior

Lotanna2:
It followed electoral act which is superior

Electoral act is not superior, if it were, the tribunal wouldn't have admitted the none compliance with INEC guidelines as a strong case.


The constitution
Electoral act
Election guidelines


these three together work together to ensure smooth, free and fair election.


It was the election guidelines that gave many Nigerians and even candidates the confidence to vote and contest the 2023 election respectively. You know this already.



Even INEC know that not following their own election guidelines invalidates the election, reason they came up with the lies that their "Presidential election server had glitches" but NASS conducted same day and time didn't have any glitches, how possible bro?

franchasofficia:
Electoral act is not superior, if it were, the tribunal wouldn't have admitted the none compliance with INEC guidelines as a strong case.


The constitution
Electoral act
Election guidelines


these three together work together to ensure smooth, free and fair election.


It was the election guidelines that gave many Nigerians and even candidates the confidence to vote and contest the 2023 election respectively. You know this already.



Even INEC know that not following their own election guidelines invalidates the election, reason they came up with the lies that their "Presidential election server had glitches" but NASS conducted same day and time didn't have any glitches, how possible bro?

Guidelines in 2015 said they should use card reader.guidekines in 2019 said they should use server.what happened eventually?