REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR THE CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS, 2022.
(Paragraph-93)

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.

....
...

ELECTORAL-ACT-2022:
SECTION-64: SUB-SECTION-(6)

(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.

..
The emboldened part of this Paragraph-93 of the “Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of Elections, 2022” is in direct contradiction with the Electoral-Act-2022, and is therefore inconsistent with the Electoral-Act-2022.

The Electoral-Act-2022 in Section-64: Sub-sections: 4,5,6,7,-&-8 -- Especially “sub-section-6” -- the Electoral-Act-2022 clearly listed the items for settling election results disputes,, and the Electoral-Act-2022 did not at any point mention “duplicate hardcopies issued by the commission to the Police or to Agents of Political Parties”.

So,, for the INEC to include that particular confusing and contradicting clause inside their INEC-Regulations,, we all just begin to wonder.


Please check the embedded quotes above for the relevant excerpts of the Electoral-Act and the INEC Guidelines,, and compare them.

..
..
.
The main problem we have in this Nigeria is OUR LAWS...



Our weak (and mostly contradicting) Laws are preventing us from doing the proper things the proper ways and at the proper times..

How does that make obi who came distant 3rd the winner of the election when his party refuse to have 44,000 polling unit agents during the election?

INEC is a disaster

MICHEALADEX:
How does that make Obi who came distant 3rd the winner of the election when his party refuse to have 44,000 polling unit agents during the election?

..
..
Tell me in just One single sentence HOW THIS ANALYTICAL THREAD HAPPENED TO BE ABOUT OBI..


Who mentioned Obi here.??

..

..

And to my fellow analysts..
Fergie001, Garfield1, Racoon, Penguin2, Litigator.

What's your take on this topic??

INEC Electoral Guidelines as released or amended are more relevant to the elections at hand, provided it is justifiable in the face of every committment made to make it so.

DesChyko:
INEC Electoral Guidelines as released or amended are more relevant to the elections at hand, provided it is justifiable in the face of every committment made to make it so.

The Supreme Court had decided in many cases that the “INEC Regulations and Guidelines” shouldn't go beyond the Electoral-Act.

So..
No matter what the “INEC Electoral Guidelines” is saying,, the Electoral-Act is still the Status-Laws which guides its provisions.

BluntCrazeMan:

The Supreme Court had decided in many cases that the “INEC Regulations and Guidelines” shouldn't go beyond the Electoral-Act.

So..
No matter what the “INEC Electoral Guidelines” is saying,, the Electoral-Act is still the Status-Laws which guides its provisions.

Which is crazy, because a N200bn investment in BVAS/iREV infrastructure was tossed in the mud because of the electoral act; and no sanctions whatsoever for the deliberate waste.

BluntCrazeMan:
And to my fellow analysts..
Garfield1, Racoon, Penguin2, Litigator.

What's your take on this topic??

In effects of a conflicts between the Electoral Act and the Regulations & Guidelines in the Conduct of the election, the Electoral Act stands superior.

The Electoral Act is an enactment of the National Assembly whilst the Regulations and Guidelines is a subsidiary legislation, designed by INEC for the conduct of the election.

I have taken a cursory look at both Sections and I find no conflict.

There are times where INEC or adhoc staff of INEC can decide to play too smart by not producing original copies.

INEC is not compelled to produce Original copies of results especially where it is an adversary to a case.

It is now incumbent on the petitioners or appellants or the man who needs it to produce duplicate copies from their agents as proof OR IReV portal (as Ombugadu did in Nasarawa) or police copies (as Uzodinma did in Imo).

Again, the Regulations & Guidelines is binding and help fill seeming gaps that ensure transparency. A clear example is the Voters Register that is not in the Electoral Act but is in the Regulations and Guidelines.

You cannot prove over-voting today without producing the voters register.

BluntCrazeMan:
And to my fellow analysts..
Fergie001, Garfield1, Racoon, Penguin2, Litigator.

What's your take on this topic??

Hmmm

fergie001:

......
OR IReV portal (as Ombugadu did in Nasarawa)....

DID YOU JUST SAY IREV PORTAL.??

garfield1:



Hmmm

Talk naa..
Abbegg..

DesChyko:


Which is crazy, because a N200bn investment in BVAS/iREV infrastructure was tossed in the mud because of the electoral act; and no sanctions whatsoever for the deliberate waste.

Believe me..
The whole thing got me so much confused.

I don't know what to say about it for now.
Maybe, until after the whole Supreme Court Judgements.

BluntCrazeMan:


DID YOU JUST SAY IREV PORTAL.??

What is in the IReV?
A scanned copy of Form EC8A uploaded by the PO, an adhoc staff of INEC. Though this one is when it gets to the Court because nobody will be at the collation centre and waiting for you to use internet to open whatever.

fergie001:
What is in the IReV?
A scanned copy of Form EC8A uploaded by the PO, an adhoc staff of INEC.

Please make things clear to me.

The PEPT Judgement rubbished the whole concept of IREV..

BluntCrazeMan:
Please make things clear to me.

The PEPT Judgement rubbished the whole concept of IREV..

The PEPT Judgement didn't.

Atiku & Obi said it wasn't uploaded in real-time. Obi went further to say about 18k+ were blurred on the portal.

The Court said if they were blurred, produce the duplicate copies from your agents or the Police.

To add to it, neither Obi nor Atiku called up one Polling Agent in their cases.

Form EC8A is the most powerful document in our electoral system.

fergie001:
The PEPT Judgement didn't.

Atiku & Obi said it wasn't uploaded in real-time. Obi went further to say about 18k+ were blurred on the portal.

The Court said if they were blurred, produce the duplicate copies from your agents or the Police.

Form EC8A is the most powerful document in our electoral system.

Wait.
Duplicate Copies from the police and agents are even the Third and Fourth options respectively..

1. First Option is the INEC’s Copy, or CTC of it.
(INEC blatantly refused to produce it).

2. Second Option is the IREV Portal Results, or CTC of it..
(Which the LP produced)
...
Now,, if the INEC (or even the PEPT) wants to prove LP wrong,, is it the LP that would go and get those duplicates or their CTCs??

I don't just know why this PEPT Judgement seems to get k-leg in my eyes.

BluntCrazeMan:


Wait.
Duplicate Copies from the police and agents are even the Third and Fourth options respectively..

1. First Option is the INEC’s Copy, or CTC of it.
(INEC blatantly refused to produce it).

2. Second Option is the IREV Portal Results, or CTC of it..
(Which the LP produced)
...
Now,, if the INEC (or even the PEPT) wants to prove LP wrong,, is it the LP that would go and get those duplicates or their CTCs??

I don't just know why this PEPT Judgement seems to get k-leg in my eyes.

INEC will not refuse on subpoena. If they refuse, it's contempt of Court. So one of two things happened.
A. INEC gave them what they wanted but they wanted more which was not in their pleadings (that was an afterthought, so INEC refused).

OR

B. INEC was not on subpoena because the parties depended more on the IReV results.

In Oyetola v Adeleke, when INEC was dilly-dallying on Adeleke's Certificate. We all saw what happened, INEC had to produce it.

2. Majority of what was brought out from IReV were the 18k+ blurred copies which they said they couldn't read or see. So how will the Court rule in that position.

When they produced that from IReV, did they speak to those documents? They probably dumped it on the Court who cannot go into an Inquisitorial investigation into these findings.

In the tribunal in Nasarawa, the INEC was compelled to produce Voters Register and they refused. The tribunal now took that produced in Court by the Petitioner as valid.

If PDP and/or LP had produced PU agents with their own duplicate EC8As, INEC will be holed up. It will have been INEC running from pillar to post.

fergie001:

INEC will not refuse on subpoena. If they refuse, it's contempt of Court. So one of two things happened.
A. INEC gave them what they wanted but they wanted more which was not in their pleadings (that was an afterthought, so INEC refused).

OR

B. INEC was not on subpoena because the parties depended more on the IReV results.

LP wanted both the IREV Results and the EC8As, EC8Bs, EC8Cs, and EC8Ds, and so much more..
And they were all stated inside the petition.
(Check Page-31 of the petition. Paragraph-101(b)..
And Page-34; Paragraph-101(uu))

LP applied for all those documents in Abuja as well in ALL the 36-States and in the FCT too..

Then,, they also caused the Appeal Court (Tribunal) to issue subpoena to INEC to produce all those results.

They declined all the requests.

And the PEPT didn't even mention all these LP efforts in their Judgement.

LP had to make use of only the IREV CTCs.

And to challenge only the 18k+plus blurred IREV results, rather than the results itself which they intended to challenge.

In Oyetola v Adeleke, when INEC was dilly-dallying on Adeleke's Certificate. We all saw what happened, INEC had to produce it.

2. Majority of what was brought out from IReV were the 18k+ blurred copies which they said they couldn't read or see. So how will the Court rule in that position.

When they produced that from IReV, did they speak to those documents? They probably dumped it on the Court who cannot go into an Inquisitorial investigation into these findings.

In the tribunal in Nasarawa, the INEC was compelled to produce Voters Register and they refused. The tribunal now took that produced in Court by the Petitioner as valid.

If PDP and/or LP had produced PU agents with their own duplicate EC8As, INEC will be holed up. It will have been INEC running from pillar to post.

Was it not proved beyond every reasonable doubt by the LP that INEC blurred 18k+plus polling units on the IREV Portal.??

Is it the same LP that should start to prove themselves otherwise?

BluntCrazeMan:
LP wanted both the IREV Results and the EC8As, EC8Bs, EC8Cs, and EC8Ds, and so much more..
And they were all stated inside the petition.
(Check Page-31 of the petition. Paragraph-101(b)..
And Page-34; Paragraph-101(uu))

LP applied for all those documents in Abuja as well in ALL the 36-States and in the FCT too..

Then,, they also caused the Appeal Court (Tribunal) to issue subpoena to INEC to produce all those results.

They declined all the requests.

And the PEPT didn't even mention all these LP efforts in their Judgement.

LP had to make use of only the IREV CTCs.

And to challenge only the 18k+plus blurred IREV results, rather than the results itself which they intended to challenge.

Was it not proved beyond every reasonable doubt by the LP that INEC blurred 18k+plus polling units on the IREV Portal.??

Is it the same LP that should start to prove themselves otherwise?

In election petition cases, the burden of proof is on the Petitioner who intends to benefit from the decision(s) of the Court.


I will like the to address the alleged blurred 18k+ votes

"...the law is clearly settled that specifying the particular PU or specific places where irregularities are alleged to have occurred are material particulars in an election petition which allege irregularities and malpractices but fail to specify the Polling Units or specific places where the irregularities or malpractices occurred are bereft of material particulars and such averments are incompetent and liable to be struck out. see SC judgements in (Belgore v. Ahmed, Ikpeazu v Otti)

It is clear that LP did not State PUs by PUs where these alleged manipulations and irregularities occurred. The Petitioner has to draw a nexus between the Docs and the depositions of the witnesses.

These documents were dumped on the Court.

1. The PUs were not drawn up in their petitions. They didn't specify the Polling Units where these occurred. It is not the duty of the Courts to begin to draw up conclusions in the inner recesses of their Chambers.

2. Like in Uzodinma v Ihedioha, INEC also did not produce CTCs of these documents. They only claimed the PUs were cancelled at Ward and/or LGA Centres.

However, Uzodinma presented before the Courts, duplicate hard copies from the Police and his PU agents which were incontrovertible.

Like I explained earlier, if INEC did not produce same, it is incumbent on the Petitioners to have presented duplicate hard copies of Form EC8A from their Polling Agents or Party Collation Officers. None was presented.

The question I have continued to ask is this:
Were were the polling agents of these parties?

LP did not prove beyond reasonable doubts that INEC did blur the results on time neither did LP/PDP show sufficient proof of their petitions.

fergie001:


In election petition cases, the burden of proof is on the Petitioner who intends to benefit from the decision(s) of the Court.


I will like the to address the alleged blurred 18k+ votes

"...the law is clearly settled that specifying the particular PU or specific places where irregularities are alleged to have occurred are material particulars in an election petition which allege irregularities and malpractices but fail to specify the Polling Units or specific places where the irregularities or malpractices occurred are bereft of material particulars and such averments are incompetent and liable to be struck out. see SC judgements in (Belgore v. Ahmed, Ikpeazu v Otti)

It is clear that LP did not State PUs by PUs where these alleged manipulations and irregularities occurred. The Petitioner has to draw a nexus between the Docs and the depositions of the witnesses.

These documents were dumped on the Court.

1. The PUs were not drawn up in their petitions. They didn't specify the Polling Units where these occurred. It is not the duty of the Courts to begin to draw up conclusions in the inner recesses of their Chambers.

2. Like in Uzodinma v Ihedioha, INEC also did not produce CTCs of these documents. They only claimed the PUs were cancelled at Ward and/or LGA Centres.

However, Uzodinma presented before the Courts, duplicate hard copies from the Police and his PU agents which were incontrovertible.

Like I explained earlier, if INEC did not produce same, it is incumbent on the Petitioners to have presented duplicate hard copies of Form EC8A from their Polling Agents or Party Collation Officers. None was presented.

The question I have continued to ask is this:
Were were the polling agents of these parties?

LP did not prove beyond reasonable doubts that INEC did blur the results on time neither did LP/PDP show sufficient proof of their petitions.

Wait..

So the LP cannot present the full List of all those blurred 18,088 PUs at the Supreme Court,, plus including the full list of all those 9,403 PUs that are yet to be uploaded to the IREV up till this very moment??

BluntCrazeMan:

Wait..

So the LP cannot present the full List of all those blurred 18,088 PUs at the Supreme Court,, plus including the full list of all those 9,403 PUs that are yet to be uploaded to the IREV up till this very moment??

See in any election petition case, INEC sticks with the winner irrespective of Political Party. It does, so as to tell the courts that she indeed conducted the election in substantial compliance unless it intends to snitch, INEC will simply say it will abide by the decision of the Court.

In any Election petition, INEC is an adversary to the petitioner. So, in short, he doesn't want the petitioner to win. Is it supposed to be like that? It's a subject for another day.

So, if INEC brings out any tactics, the Petitioner has to match same. To do that is through his pleadings, evidence, duplicate hard copies of Form EC8A. Of course, you know where the police will stand wrt the ruling Party, so the petitioner has to be ready.

To depend on IReV, is to delay the time of the Petitioner. His bedrock for over-voting for example are his witnesses (agents or voters - subpoenaed or not), Form EC8A & Voters Register.

Once he weaponises his petition, INEC will be on the defensive.

BluntCrazeMan:



..
..
Tell me in just One single sentence HOW THIS ANALYTICAL THREAD HAPPENED TO BE ABOUT OBI..


Who mentioned Obi here.??

Obi is actually living rent free in the medulla oblongata of that fellow

BluntCrazeMan:

Wait..

So the LP cannot present the full List of all those blurred 18,088 PUs at the Supreme Court,, plus including the full list of all those 9,403 PUs that are yet to be uploaded to the IREV up till this very moment??

You don't have to depend on a Respondent to your Petition to proof your Case..Again,the Document on IREV Portal is the form EC8A, the Party Polling Agents have it, You definitely don't need IREV or INEC to give you..Where were the ones submitted by the Party Agents to the LP/PDP? A serious Political Party will know its fate either Win or Loss even before INEC declaration by making use of that very important form EC8A in its own Situation room..It will be easy to challenge INEC's declaration when its erred.

fergie001:

In effects of a conflicts between the Electoral Act and the Regulations & Guidelines in the Conduct of the election, the Electoral Act stands superior.

The Electoral Act is an enactment of the National Assembly whilst the Regulations and Guidelines is a subsidiary legislation, designed by INEC for the conduct of the election.

I have taken a cursory look at both Sections and I find no conflict.

There are times where INEC or adhoc staff of INEC can decide to play too smart by not producing original copies.

INEC is not compelled to produce Original copies of results especially where it is an adversary to a case.

It is now incumbent on the petitioners or appellants or the man who needs it to produce duplicate copies from their agents as proof OR IReV portal (as Ombugadu did in Nasarawa) or police copies (as Uzodinma did in Imo).

Again, the Regulations & Guidelines is binding and help fill seeming gaps that ensure transparency. A clear example is the Voters Register that is not in the Electoral Act but is in the Regulations and Guidelines.

You cannot prove over-voting today without producing the voters register.

No vs whatsoever, You said it all in the bolded, an Act of parliament shall always be superior, its statutes is conclusive evidence.

fergie001:

See in any election petition case, INEC sticks with the winner irrespective of Political Party. It does, so as to tell the courts that she indeed conducted the election in substantial compliance unless it intends to snitch, INEC will simply say it will abide by the decision of the Court.

In any Election petition, INEC is an adversary to the petitioner. So, in short, he doesn't want the petitioner to win. Is it supposed to be like that? It's a subject for another day.

So, if INEC brings out any tactics, the Petitioner has to match same. To do that is through his pleadings, evidence, duplicate hard copies of Form EC8A. Of course, you know where the police will stand wrt the ruling Party, so the petitioner has to be ready.

To depend on IReV, is to delay the time of the Petitioner. His bedrock for over-voting for example are his witnesses (agents or voters - subpoenaed or not), Form EC8A & Voters Register.

Once he weaponises his petition, INEC will be on the defensive.

The Timelines for the filing of the petition are too short for someone to make all the necessary specific observations and include them in the filing of the petition.

Even the timeline for the hearing itself is also too short - considering the huge volume of data needed to be demonstrated in the open tribunal - especially for the presidential election.

BluntCrazeMan:
The Timelines for the filing of the petition are too short for someone to make all the necessary specific observations and include them in the filing of the petition.

Even the timeline for the hearing itself is also too short - considering the huge volume of data needed to be demonstrated in the open tribunal - especially for the presidential election.

Exactly.

I also align with this; if Presidential Petitions can have perhaps 30 days after declaration of results, rather than the 21 we now have.

fergie001:

Exactly.

I also align with this; if Presidential Petitions can have perhaps 30 days after declaration of results, rather than the 21 we now have.

Well.
Let us see what the future holds.
It can only get better.
The mistakes of today molds a better tomorrow.

Burob:
No vs whatsoever, You said it all in the bolded, an Act of parliament shall always be superior, its statutes is conclusive evidence.

Shatap